In Tales of Suspense 49 (Jan. 1964), Iron Man would use his new armor to withstand a nuclear detonation and rescue a member of the X-Men, the new team fighting the Blob in their third issue that same month.
“Oh, it makes perfect sense that Stan (Lee) would want to showcase his new title in another book and market them a bit more,” comics historian Don Alsafi noted. “But ... the Angel? I know the X-Men has only been around for a couple of issues so far, and hasn't had much of a chance to really develop the characters — and yet, the Angel isn’t the team member I would have thought to be most appealing or interesting. Really, in a setting as weird and wondrous as the Marvel world has rapidly become, the ability to fly is as unremarkable of a power as ... well, the ability to shrink. (Note that characters such as the Human Torch, Sub-Mariner and Iron Man all possess the power of flight, and in ways that are completely secondary to their main abilities.)”
Deranged by the all-purpose plot device of radiation, the Angel embarks on a rampage that Iron Man halts with a particularly heroic strategy. Deliberately letting his boot jets flame out, Iron Man plunges into a fatal dive, reasoning that his plight may snap the Angel back to his normally heroic personality.
As when Daredevil fought the Sub-Mariner, this was another innovative example of a Marvel hero achieving a victory by “losing.”
The Angel was exposed by flying above a nuclear experiment at Tony Stark’s weapons plant, so Iron Man undoubtedly felt personal responsibility for his plight. But nevertheless, Stark risked his life for a stranger in a gamble that paid off.
I’m not sure 21st century audiences, long since jaded by the Lord of the Flies ethics of “reality TV,” would buy a superhero that altruistic. But it impressed the hell out of me when I was 9.
Mark Engblom wrote: I've never realized that the X-Men were still so new to the Marvel Universe ... or maybe (more appropriately for that early time) the Marvel Solar System?
ReplyDeleteAs for the choice of the Angel, it's always fascinating through the lens of hindsight to see the characters publishers were clearly pushing to be breakout solo stars. Another example was the Human Torch and his ill-conceived solo spot in "Strange Tales". Within the X-Men canon itself, Marvel also seemed to think Nightcrawler would be the early breakout star of the "New X-Men" era with a guest appearance in Amazing Spider-Man (Marvel's flagship title at the time), instead of the hot-tempered Canadian mutant who would shortly become the actual breakout superstar.
Bob Doncaster wrote: Always liked the Angei. Never cared for his losing his wings and Archangel persona.
ReplyDeleteChris Babin wrote: To give an example of an altruistic hero totally loved and accepted by a 21st century audience, I would say watch Naruto. He is completely self-sacrificing in his quest for peace, loyalty and growth. I’ve watched almost ten seasons with my son and it is inspiring. Almost all of his classmates love that show. The appeal of altruism is not lost, it’s just not as exploited and doesn’t receive the same exposure as the me-at-all-costs crap of reality tv.
ReplyDeleteMichael Fraley wrote: Now that I think about it, the Angel was a good fit because it 1) promoted the X-Men title while also 2) promoting Iron Man's new armor and its agility. In his old armor, Iron Man was more of a flying trash can.
ReplyDeleteGene Popa wrote: I really think that initially, Stan felt that the Angel had the best break-out potential, much as the Human Torch had in the FF (by earning his own solo feature). Recall that for many issues of X-MEN, the Angel was featured in a stock image over the title on the cover, whereas his teammates were relegated to the corner box.
ReplyDeleteCheryl Spoehr wrote: The Angel was my favorite X Man. The Beast is a very,very close second. I still like angel best. Make him a girl,and she would be the X "person" I wanted to be. That wonderful power of flight made up for his smeg head personality. And when he thinks silently that he assumes the others would all want to fly if they had the chance,it made perfect sense to me. Being young,I wondered if maybe,just maybe...if I exercised my shoulder blades ...I just might grow wings? To this day, whenever I wish. I can move my shoulder blades like "wings". This is why I love teaching grade school children. They are old enough to understand and use logic, but young enough to believe that maybe, just maybe, magic and similar things might be true. That aspect of childhood should be praised and respected more,without it there would be no creativity in adults.
ReplyDeletePhilip Rushton wrote: Yes. Somehow there was something much more exciting about flying with your own natural wings than using artificial ones like Hawkman or 'leaping tall buildings' like Superman.
ReplyDeleteHarmony Gates wrote: It is interesting to note that Lee didn't like characters with no obvious explanation for their ability to fly (you can see the tension in his scripts and letter columns in the early Hulks where he is desperately trying to fix Kirby's apparent decision to give the character floating/flying powers after a trip to space). But he did seem to really like the idea of a flying man...remember all those Vulture stories where he says things like "No one can beat a man with WINGS!".
ReplyDeleteMichael Fraley wrote: Dan Hagen - the Mighty Marvel Age of Recycling continued! :) How much this owed to Kirby, I'm not sure. Kirby probably connected the Angel to the winged mutant in Edmond Hamilton's 1938 story, "He That Hath Wings." The Beast would have been an evolutionary throwback, a familiar SF trope. Marvel Girl and Prof. X showed off the psychic mutant abilities familiar from 1950's SF. Iceman? A remake of Timely's Jack Frost, just as Cyclops was a remake of Jack Cole's The Comet. I think it's interesting that both the "team leaders" of the FF and the X-Men were both based (somewhat) on Jack Cole characters.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Buckle wrote: A favourite issue from Ditko. I think it was a good choice of Angel vs Iron Man, can't imagine the Beast or IceMan (he had already had Jack Frost) or Cyclops (possibly but he had the Melter / Crimson Dynamo etc with beams) or Marvel Girl (certain Stark and a Jean Grey romance and conflict with Scott). I think the Angel was a decent enough character (and Spider-man had the Vulture to contend with)
ReplyDeleteMike Allwood wrote:
ReplyDeleteA fine posting! ...still love that issue!
Tony Ingram wrote:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've always loved the Angel as a character, and considered natural flight to be a fantastic power. I think people have become a bit jaded to it now, since every other character can fly, but in the early sixties there weren't that many fliers at Marvel.
I replied:
The wonderful power of flight got underrated because it became SOP for so many superheroes early on.
Rafael Ramirez wrote:
ReplyDeleteI loved all of Iron Man's array of costumes.
I replied:
They did a good job of running through several of them in the first movie.
Paul Zuckerman wrote:
ReplyDeleteEarly Marvel comics were weak on logic. Seriously -- Iron Man had a problem dealing with the Angel?
Still, the moral of the story is a good one and helped solidify our view of the characters.
Flight used to be viewed as a great ability. In Flash Gordon's world, the hawkmen had advantages that others did not, But not so, as you point out, Dan, in a world where everyone flies. Maybe that's why Hawkman wasn't as successful in the 60s as he was in the 40s. And in the recent Black Adam movie, they had to make him much more powerful than he is in the comics to stay in the fight.
Still, I think most of us would be happy to be able to just fly!
I replied:
The power of flight is a universal psychological symbol for freedom. That's why we dream about it.
Richard Meyer wrote:
ReplyDeleteSounds like something Superman would have done… I liked Marvel heroes better when they acted like jerks lol
Gene Lass wrote:
ReplyDeleteI think it was either in his intro in Origins of Marvel Comics, or in his intro before one of the VHS special X-Men animated videos in the 90s, Stan talked about creating the X-Men, and the whole point of Angel is that everyone wants to fly. Plus they're mutants. Lots of characters could fly, but with Angel you had the weird aspect of actually growing wings. And really, when you think about the character and mutants, that's what resonates. When I've worked in a downtown setting, I've looked out the window and wondered what it would be like if some guy with giant wings growing out of his back just flew by. And that would be freaky, and yet cool. Not the best combat-oriented power, but as an evolutionary trait, that would be awesome.
I replied:
Also, they were once again having a touchstone to the 1940s by recycling the name "Angel."
Ian Gould wrote:
ReplyDeleteWell remember that Goodman was keen to bring back Golden Age characters even if only in name - Daredevil, Ka-Zar, Captain America, Human Torch, Submariner etc - and there had been a reasonably popular and long-running Timely character called The Angel.
Bob Bailey wrote:
ReplyDeleteI remember buying this issue and I thought it was odd too.
Jim Gray wrote:
ReplyDeleteGreat post! And as a big Ditko fan, I found his rendition so interesting.
Todd Spangrud wrote:
ReplyDelete#48 and 49 are 2 of my favorite books and covers of the Early Marvel Silver Age.
Peter O'Hearn wrote:
ReplyDeleteSweeeeetness!
Thomas Payne wrote:
ReplyDeleteAt 13 when the X-Men were introduced, a guy with wings was definitely the main attraction, and I fell in love with the Angel. He was only second to the Human Torch for me at the time.
I replied:
The Human Torch was also my favorite FF member.
Ricky Lowe wrote:
ReplyDeleteI thought the funniest part of the story was a caption that read “The Angel appears by special arrangement with the editors of The X-Men magazine.”
I replied:
Yes, that was a cutesy-pie trick of Stan's, asking himself permission.
Andrew Buckle wrote:
ReplyDeleteThey could have explored a lot more with the Angel, they really never developed his range of possible abilities in those early issues (though I suppose, much the same with the Beast and cyclops etc) - always enjoyed that issue of Iron-Man / Ditko work. If only they had given him a pair of binoculars, he would have been useful for planning and observations of the villains (I know, would have made for a dull comic book though !)
Ian Gould wrote:
ReplyDeleteFWIW, a few years later when Marvel tried to shake up X-Men, they "killed off" Professor X and there was a series of issues that highlighted individual team members in smaller groups from the team. Angel was first, followed by Cyclops, then Iceman and Beast and then Cyclops and Marvel Girl.
So even then, Marvel may have thought of Angel as the most popular X-Man.
Thomas J Burns wrote:
ReplyDeleteStan CLEARLY expected the Angel to be the breakout star here, with his "I was a superhero BEFORE Xavier found me" origin.
Carl Thiel wrote:
ReplyDeleteNuclear bomb test near New York City? Wasn't this around the same time that Peter Parker took off a day of school in the same New York City to go watch a manned rocket take off?
Burns Duncan wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt has always seemed remarkable that a superhero with wings like Angel or Hawkman has hardly made the B-list.
Yes, I know lots of characters can fly, and do so without needing wings. Still, ability to fly always ranks high in polls on most desirable fantastic powers.
As noted, super-speed and size-changing can be just part of a character's powers, but they can be effectively used as a character's whole shtick.
Gary Van Horn wrote:
ReplyDeleteI'd say the logic was that because the Angel could fly it allowed Iron man to combat someone in the air which he wouldn't be able to do with any of the other X-Men. Also back then flying as a super power wasn't so run of the mill. DC's Hawkman had his own book at the time didn't he?
I replied:
Yes, Hawkman's own title finally began in 1964 after two tryout runs.
Craig E. Higgins:
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Angel being pushed as a breakout star, in Stan Lee's mind there might've been a process of elimination going on. From a marketing standpoint, In the earliest "X-Men" issues Cyclops' face is never fully seen and he has this dour personality; Beast is the goofy comic relief; when powered up, Iceman is completely faceless (he's basically Frosty the Snowman in the first issue); and Jean is there to be ogled (even though in the first issue it's established she's possibly the most powerful member of the team).
In contrast to the other four Warren Worthington III is handsome, charismatic, rich and has a visual appeal that lends itself to heroism - he literally looks like an angel. And there was a Golden Age character called the Angel, the recycling of ideas from that period being a particular favorite trick of Lee's.
All that said, the Angel wasn't really all that interesting a character, and it's not surprising he didn't become a fan favorite; as Dave Cockrum pointed out in an early 1980s interview, Worthington was, "an idiot that flies." And that was the perception of the Angel until Walt Simonson turned him into Archangel.
I considered Cyclops to be the central star of the X-Men early on. He had the requisite angst and sense of repsonsibility, and seemed to carry most of the emotional weight of the stories.
ReplyDeleteJohnny Williams:
ReplyDeleteDan, despite the logic or illogic of featuring Warren in the tale, just the very ‘Idea’ of having a cameo/team up/crossover/guess appearance such as that was enough for me to energetically give up my twelve cents. Add on to that my (back then) newly acquired excitement/obsession with Stan and Jack’s merry band of mutants and you got a fan who didn’t give a ‘flying fig’ which Xavier student was used.
In the world of 1960s ‘Kid’s Fandom’ sometimes things that occurred in our beloved books were (for us kids) simply taken at face value because we were smart enough to recognize that they were comic books and that to enjoy them you couldn’t remain completely steeped in and bound by the logic of the real world.
So, while there was ‘some’ analysis of the book’s contents, (my comics buddies and I had some real marathon sessions, Lol) scholarly analysis and thesis’s, dissertations, research papers, etc., of the comics we read eagerly every month would have to come later. For us it was simple - ‘A guy with wings went up against a guy in a ‘space age’ suit of armor, and BOY was That ever cool!!!!’
I replied:
In some ways, the very unlikeliness of the match interested me.
C.J. Marshall:
ReplyDeleteI've been a huge Marvel fan since I was a nine years old, and confess that I just ate up Stan's melodramatic dialog and plotlines. When I re-read them now, I mostly smile - and occasionally wince - realizing we've come a long way since those days. Still, Stan infused in his stories a sense of fun - something I think is sorely missing with many of today's superheroes.
Mike Tiefenbacher:
ReplyDeleteRemember, Stan was a kid in the '40s absorbing the importance of his cousin's husband's superhero line even before he was hired to work there, and probably assumed that fans of the Golden Age would be as excited by the revival of the Angel name as they were about Torch, Subby and Cap, as Angel was fourth in line as Timely's most long-running hero. A straight revival of THAT Angel, of course, wouldn't have worked since he had no powers. (And yes, as a kid, the Angel was easily the most visually appealing of the otherwise drab X-Men to me. But then, Hawkman was my favorite silver-age hero.)
I replied:
Good points. Among the older character names that were revamped and revitalized at Marvel: Daredevil, Ghost Rider, the Vision, the Black Knight, Paladin, Crimebuster, Quicksilver, the Comet, the Black Cat, Sandman, Hydroman, Wonder Man, and, of course, Captain Marvel and the Human Torch.
Ira Henkin:
ReplyDeleteGood analysis.
Philip Portelli:
ReplyDeleteApparently the Golden Age Angel was publisher Martin Goodman's favorite character so Stan pushed the new Angela lot.
I replied:
Really, the original was the Saint in a (rather pointless) costume.
Art Cloos:
ReplyDeleteVery nice Dan.
ReplyDeleteJose Luis Medina:
I liked The Angel because he had wings and could fly. That was enough for me. Also the Human Torch was my favorite of the four.
I replied:
The Torch was mine too. What can I say? I like flying people.
Paul Zuckerman:
ReplyDeleteYou know, Dan, I don't even remember making those comments! I am going to keep you around for research of anything I've ever said! 🙂 I was going to talk about flying, but since I already did....I'll move on to two other observations.
Mark Engblom talks about the Human Torch series being ill-conceived. Since the Torch had been one of the three stars and mainstays of Timely, Stan must have thought that a solo series would do well. That same thinking must have applied to the solo series a little later on for the Sub-Mariner and Captain America. But only Cap's took -- only he has been a successful solo character over the decades since. Why? Part of it might be the very different nature of comics from the 40s -- more free-wheeling, less concerned about personality or logic; plot-driven, and enemies that, for the most part, were weaker. The Comics Code prevented either the Torch or Subby from doing things that their 1940s versions would do. And, as for Johnny, as a character he was simply more limited in what he could do and his personality was rather limited as well. In fact, he still is mostly a one-note character. The Thing had to be brought in before Stan decided to get rid of the solo series as part of an increasing need to keep the characters in the same place in all the books, and with extended arcs in FF that went on for months, the solo series just didn't work.
The other thing that caught my attention was that everyone naturally assumes that the Torch appeared because Stan wanted him to do so. And yet, the army of Kirby/Ditko fans that revile Lee would deny that he had any input in stories by their idols, and this was a Ditko story. One would hardly imagine that Ditko would have decided to use the Angel on his own and yet the Legion of Stan Haters (LSH) would somehow conclude that Stan was just a figurehead having no control or direction over the strips.