Why is the Galactus Trilogy (Kirby & Lee) considered so great?

[npasto]

I grew up in the 90s when Image was the trendy thing, so I didn't read many Marvel or DC Comics. Even now I'm not well-versed on Marvel characters or their key storylines. However, I'm trying to catch up on my comics history and read some of the great stuff from the past. I have the first 40 issues of Fantastic Four in black and white. They are okay, but honestly the storytelling is a bit too wacky for me.

However, I heard great things about the Galactus Trilogy (FF 48-50), so I recently decided to pick up the FF Omnibus Vol. 2, which covers issues 31-60. I'm enjoying it a lot more than the earlier issues. You can see Kirby and Lee growing with each issue right before your eyes. The art is phenomenal and the stories evolve from the simple single-issue plots to more complex arcs that span multiple issues. I enjoyed the Inhumans arc leading up the Galactus Trilogy and the Galactus Trilogy itself was interesting, with a mixture of compelling new characters (Galactus/Surfer) and significant character development in the main cast (Reed/Sue friction, Johnny going off into space-time, and The Thing doubling down on self-loathing).

I really enjoyed this trilogy. These issues hold up well and are fun to read, but if I hadn't known its reputation as one of the most important arcs in comics history, I'm not sure I would've assumed the trilogy was considered that great. Does part of the reputation stem from the context? Was it the fact that, at the time, no one was telling complex stories in super hero comics with complex characters? I'm wondering if someone could explain its full significance to me.

[Redjack]

I grew up in the 90s when Image was the trendy thing, so I didn't read many Marvel or DC Comics. Even now I'm not well-versed on Marvel characters or their key storylines. However, I'm trying to catch up on my comics history and read some of the great stuff from the past. I have the first 40 issues of Fantastic Four in black and white. They are okay, but honestly the storytelling is a bit too wacky for me.

However, I heard great things about the Galactus Trilogy (FF 48-50), so I recently decided to pick up the FF Omnibus Vol. 2, which covers issues 31-60. I'm enjoying it a lot more than the earlier issues. You can see Kirby and Lee growing with each issue right before your eyes. The art is phenomenal and the stories evolve from the simple single-issue plots to more complex arcs that span multiple issues. I enjoyed the Inhumans arc leading up the Galactus Trilogy and the Galactus Trilogy itself was interesting, with a mixture of compelling new characters (Galactus/Surfer) and significant character development in the main cast (Reed/Sue friction, Johnny going off into space-time, and The Thing doubling down on self-loathing).

I really enjoyed this trilogy. These issues hold up well and are fun to read, but if I hadn't known its reputation as one of the most important arcs in comics history, I'm not sure I would've assumed the trilogy was considered that great. Does part of the reputation stem from the context? Was it the fact that, at the time, no one was telling complex stories in super hero comics with complex characters? I'm wondering if someone could explain its full significance to me.

No Kirby, no modern super-hero comics. No Lee/Kirby, no modern superhero comics.

the end.

[WebLurker]

No Kirby, no modern super-hero comics. No Lee/Kirby, no modern superhero comics.

the end.

Just because something lead to what we know today doesn't make something great in and of itself. It sometimes happens (like how the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies are credited with starting the superhero movie craze we're enjoying today), but not always. For example, the Star Trek franchise would be a lot different today if Star Trek -- The Motion Picture wasn't made. However, TMP is not a good movie.

[Bergman]

No Kirby, no modern super-hero comics. No Lee/Kirby, no modern superhero comics.

the end.

That's not an answer.

[Abe]

That's not an answer.

I think it's a good one.

Just because something lead to what we know today doesn't make something great in and of itself. It sometimes happens (like how the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies are credited with starting the superhero movie craze we're enjoying today), but not always. For example, the Star Trek franchise would be a lot different today if Star Trek -- The Motion Picture wasn't made. However, TMP is not a good movie.

IMHO the Galactus Trilogy doesn't simply lead to what we know today. It's in itself one of the greatest story ever told : the art, the storytelling, the concepts involved. It opened a whole new field for comic books - nothing came close to that before - and, frankly, I don't think many books came close to it since.

Of course I read Silver Age comics a lot as a kid, so maybe I'm biased. But, anyway, I don't think that the comparisons you're using really fit. Superhero movies may be fun, sometimes maybe good, but I'm still waiting for the Kubrick of superhero movies. I mean, they are just blockbusters. To be honest, when they started making them, my first reaction was : 'So one day I will see Galactus on the the big screen? OMG! (the G stands for Galactus) It's a dream come true'. But now I sincerely doubt that it will happen. And that such a movie would ever be able to give me the thrill, the sence of scale, the graphical inventiveness that transpires in every panel of those three issues from the sixties. Lee and Kirby gave us then, using that poor little medium aimed then for kids, something as big as the most epic film, as impressive and mesmerizing as the greatest mythological stories.

OK. I'm a fan.

[CaptCleghorn]

I grew up in the 90s when Image was the trendy thing, so I didn't read many Marvel or DC Comics. Even now I'm not well-versed on Marvel characters or their key storylines. However, I'm trying to catch up on my comics history and read some of the great stuff from the past. I have the first 40 issues of Fantastic Four in black and white. They are okay, but honestly the storytelling is a bit too wacky for me.

However, I heard great things about the Galactus Trilogy (FF 48-50), so I recently decided to pick up the FF Omnibus Vol. 2, which covers issues 31-60. I'm enjoying it a lot more than the earlier issues. You can see Kirby and Lee growing with each issue right before your eyes. The art is phenomenal and the stories evolve from the simple single-issue plots to more complex arcs that span multiple issues. I enjoyed the Inhumans arc leading up the Galactus Trilogy and the Galactus Trilogy itself was interesting, with a mixture of compelling new characters (Galactus/Surfer) and significant character development in the main cast (Reed/Sue friction, Johnny going off into space-time, and The Thing doubling down on self-loathing).

I really enjoyed this trilogy. These issues hold up well and are fun to read, but if I hadn't known its reputation as one of the most important arcs in comics history, I'm not sure I would've assumed the trilogy was considered that great. Does part of the reputation stem from the context? Was it the fact that, at the time, no one was telling complex stories in super hero comics with complex characters? I'm wondering if someone could explain its full significance to me.

That run of FF was so far ahead of everything else at the time (even most of Marvel's stuff). The Galactus Trilogy was the equivalent of the latest Secret Wars in that the FF faced insurmountable odds and won through their bravery. And the Watcher's help, of course. The idea of a being so far beyond us that we were food to him was an idea unseen in comics (at least American comics) up to that point in time. The mix of that and the FF downstairs discussing what to do while showering and eating was a way to show that the characters were very human facing something totally unseen and unthought of. The Surfer's turning due to Alicia's pleading with him was something rare as well.

Would it be a classic if published today? Probably not. But even by today's standards it was pretty damn good. By 60's standards it was the classic of the time. It laid new ground in addition to it being a great story.

[Abe]

That run of FF was so far ahead of everything else at the time (even most of Marvel's stuff). The Galactus Trilogy was the equivalent of the latest Secret Wars in that the FF faced insurmountable odds and won through their bravery. And the Watcher's help, of course. The idea of a being so far beyond us that we were food to him was an idea unseen in comics (at least American comics) up to that point in time. The mix of that and the FF downstairs discussing what to do while showering and eating was a way to show that the characters were very human facing something totally unseen and unthought of. The Surfer's turning due to Alicia's pleading with him was something rare as well.

This!

Would it be a classic if published today? Probably not. But even by today's standards it was pretty damn good. By 60's standards it was the classic of the time. It laid new ground in addition to it being a great story.

But are there even still 'classic' published in our time?

I think that the art didn't age and is still more than 'pretty damn good'. For the storytelling, yes, standards have changed. I saw a post recently - I don't remember the thread, but I think that Carabas was the poster - basically saying that if the Galactus trilogy was published today, it would take one hundred issues to tell the story. There's a lot of truth in that, and much to think about too.

[Abe]

Let's just open our minds.

[Redjack]

Just because something lead to what we know today doesn't make something great in and of itself. It sometimes happens (like how the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies are credited with starting the superhero movie craze we're enjoying today), but not always. For example, the Star Trek franchise would be a lot different today if Star Trek -- The Motion Picture wasn't made. However, TMP is not a good movie.

Actually that's the definition of greatness. it's not just a stop in the path. it IS the path. it's the DEFINITION of modern comics. The Lee/Kirby FANTASTIC FOUR is the reason why comic books exist in the form they do now. There is no artist working in superhero comics today that doesn't owe Jack Kirby everything.

Star Trek: the Motion picture is a meaningless film. Star Trek THE ORIGINAL SERIES is analogous to Lee and Kirby on the Fantastic Four.

[Mike_Murdock]

The thing to keep in mind is that it built on nothing. It's a brilliantly creative story that did things nothing else had done before in the medium. It's an imaginative story with stakes that shine through. Even the somewhat disjointed, rushed ending that was probably Kirby's biggest flaw works well in the story. There's something strangely epic and mundane about how it ends and it leaves Galactus feeling still beyond understanding.

Every story after that might seem like it reaches greater heights are only doing so because they are standing on the shoulders of giants.

[penthotal]

Just because something lead to what we know today doesn't make something great in and of itself. It sometimes happens (like how the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies are credited with starting the superhero movie craze we're enjoying today), but not always. For example, the Star Trek franchise would be a lot different today if Star Trek -- The Motion Picture wasn't made. However, TMP is not a good movie.

I think you are misunderstanding. The thread opener ask why that saga is considered «so great». It's not that something lead to another thing. It's that sometimes something open the door to a new world of possibilities, as they say, it's seminal, and in these cases, without some specific persons, the world would never be born. Let's say Kirby instead of super hero comics had chosen to work in animation, it's fair to say, we wouldn't have what we know as super hero comics today. Star Trek is not a genre, it's not a new way to tell tales, and that movie was not the begin of a new way of making movies, or making science fiction, or anything. So your comparisons doesn't stand. The answer meant that that run is considered great for historical reasons.

[JudicatorPrime]

You must travel back in time to the core of the infinite in order to see what is soon to be. Classic!

[Iron Maiden]

Too many great post in this thread to quote them all but it does gladden my heart as an older fan to see many serious comic book fans understand the significance of this story and the Fantastic Four title itself.

npasto: I envy you in a way that you got to read the Fantastic Four as a new work like I did way back when. There just wasn't anything like it at that time.

I hope we see its' return as a monthly comic soon and with a creative team that will take it to new heights. Gosh, has it already been 5 years since Hickman's run ended?

Actually that's the definition of greatness. it's not just a stop in the path. it IS the path. it's the DEFINITION of modern comics. The Lee/Kirby FANTASTIC FOUR is the reason why comic books exist in the form they do now. There is no artist working in superhero comics today that doesn't owe Jack Kirby everything.

Star Trek: the Motion picture is a meaningless film. Star Trek THE ORIGINAL SERIES is analogous to Lee and Kirby on the Fantastic Four.

I agree. Even with a director like Robert Wise at the helm, it failed to capture the charm of Star Trek TOS. This is why the next attempt The Wrath of Khan is far more beloved of the films.

[jackolover]

Previous to the Galactus Trilogy, space stories had just involved little green men and a tall tree (Groot).

Then the Watcher shows up and he is peeing his pants. The Watcher was like the protector of Earth. Nothing could get through, and if any danger showed up, Watcher showed up first with a reassuring word. Not this time. Watcher knew what the Silver Surfer portended, and tried to hide the Earth from the Surfer. When all the Watchers tricks didn't work, Uatu came running to the Fantastic Four to tell them. Suddenly the innocent, safe, black space out there in the sky had just become a danger. Up till then, the Earth had appeared invulnerable. It had super heroes and any incursion was soon thwarted. But when the Watcher started biting his finger nails, and hopping from one foot to the other, Mr Fantastic deduced something was very wrong. Then the Surfer said to prepare, and Surfer acted like the FF were not even there, and it hurt their feelings. Sue and Alicia Masters got to talking with Surfer and he seemed to respond to females, and told them their planet was marked for destruction. That's impossible they said. The Earth has protectors. Then it started to sound like "Aliens", the second movie. "It doesn't matter".

It was the first real threat to planet Earth in the modern (post-1965) super hero Silver Age. You couldn't punch this one. Sues force field had no effect. Johnny's fire was useless. The FF were ineffective and they could only stand and watch, helpless and crying. But the Watcher did what he vowed he would never do - Interfere in the progress of another race. He opened his big mouth and showed Torch the way to Galactus's town house in space and stole the Infinite Destructor, and Reed shoved it in Galactus' face to scare him. It was the first time Earth was on the verge of annihilation, and that nothing could stop it. But lucky they had a Watcher, right?. Uatu was not going to have his life's research snuffed out because of a little vow. You got the feeling Earth was vulnerable for the first time.

You've got to put it in context of the birth of the Silver Age at Marvel, and the gradual emergence of continuity with highly complex characterisations dependant on an unshakable landscape in which all this was taking place - Mother Earth. Even the Asgardians didn't dare step out of their home to rescue Earth. That's how serious this was. We were happily reading the Spider-Man story that showed Peter lifting off tonnes of machinery to rescue May, strange Inhumans appeared suddenly in the stories, Thor was coming up against the well matched Absorbing Man. The Marvel Universe was not allowed to be destroyed at this precise moment that god decided to descend and cause the Deluge Mark 2. It had severely shaken the readers at the time. You can do that in a comic and you've got gold.

[KingsLeadHat]

Conceptually, at the very least, what Lee and Kirby were doing with the FF in the mid 60's was vastly superior to anything Marvel has done since. Name anything as groundbreaking in the past 17 years in terms of a new concept that incorporates mythology, moral philosophy and world building on this level that's not built on the foundation of Kirby. It can't be done. The only period that comes close to rivaling The Marvel Age of Comics creatively is the period roughly spanning 1977-1985.

Overall the quality of art is better and the writing is more realistic with modern comics, but that has nothing to do with innovation and ideas and everything to do with style. This is why I often roll my eyes when someone says an older comic/song/film/etc. "holds up" as if it's a universal truth that what's being done today is generally superior. I do believe that, generally, most things are getting better but some things (like mainstream conceptualism and innovation in comics) has regressed.