Quarter-Bin Podcast #153Thor Annual #6, Marvel Comics, cover-dated August 1975.
"Thunder in the 31st Century," was written by Roger Stern and Len Wein, with artby Sal Buscema and Klaus Janson.
What happens when Professor Alan decides to cover a book sent in by lovely listener Billy D, from Into the Weird? And what happens when Thor travels 1000+ years into the future, to team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy to take on Korvac and his team of bad guys?
Listen to the episode and find out!
Click on the player below to listen to the episode:
Right-click to download episode directly
You may also subscribe to the podcast through iTunes or the RSS Feed.
Promo: Justice League International Podcast
Link: Billy D's Magazines & Monsters blog
Next Episode: Mighty Thor 20, Marvel Comics, cover-dated August 2017.
Send e-mail feedback to relativelygeeky@gmail.com
"Like" us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/relativelygeeky
You can follow the network on Twitter @Relatively_Geek and the host @ProfessorAlan
Source: Billy D
Splendid episode as ever. I’ve not read this issue but I’ve had a look on Marvel Unlimited and boy, is that splash page rough, it doesn’t look like Sal Buscema/Klaus Janson, it’s like... an eight-year-old copying from a colouring book. Anyway, this looks a fun piece of fat filler fluff, good for fans of the original Guardians of the Galaxy. If nothing else, it gave us the fabulous phrase ‘star-flecked firmament’.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure the comic was presenting both sides of the nuclear armament? The only commentary one way or the other seems to be that ‘however noble might be thy cause...’ line from Thor and despite the ‘might’ (well, he is The Mighty Thor) it seems pretty clear ‘the long-haired Avenger’ isn’t a fan of fission.
Isn’t that logo Marvel used for Thor Annuals and the treasury edition just the greatest?
Well, if we don't see the political stuff the same way, maybe that's the definition of balanced?
DeleteNow that would work if you’d said you thought the comic was against nuclear power, but I thought you said the point of view within the book seemed to be showing both POVs... I must have misunderstood. Sorry sir!
DeleteNo, the misunderstanding is mine, and my first brief answer too you was too snarky.
DeleteMy view is that the book did not take a strong partisan stand, or at least did not take one that would turn off or drive away folks who held the opposite position. It wasn't just the specific position taken or not taken, but the attitude towards that position. That seemed different than the approach current comics often take.
Aha, thank you!
Delete