Marvel 1975.02 - Strange Tales #178

Strange Tales #178

Title(s): Who is Adam Warlock?

Enter the Magus

The Secret of the Magus

Writer: Jim Starlin

Artist: Jim Starlin

Villain: Magus

Flashbacks: Thor, Hulk, High Evolutionary, Man-Beast

You know that a comic is truly great if you can remember buying it. I remember the day I bought Strange Tales #178. I can't remember the exact date, but it was a Saturday. I was checking the comics at a small kiosk at the top of Walsall Bus Station in St. Paul's Street. The whole area has been rebuilt since then, but I can point at the exact spot where the kiosk used to stand. At the time I'd stopped reading Strange Tales because it had turned into a horror magazine. I remember seeing Strange Tales #178 hanging in a rack, and the cover (shown above) was so amazing that I had to take a closer look. I opened it up, and the artwork inside the comic was just as good, so I bought it, even though I'd never been a fan of the original Warlock series.

From this day on, Strange Tales and Warlock's subsequent solo comic became one of my favourite series. I was dazzled not just by the artwork, but also by the epic stories. Jim Starlin became my favourite artist and one of my favourite writers.

The comic is divided into three chapters. The first chapter, "Who is Adam Warlock", is a recap of his past history, from his first appearance in Fantastic Four #66, continuing through his own series and his guest appearances in other comics.

In the second chapter, "Enter the Magus", Warlock is standing alone on a small moon, when a woman falls at his feet and begs for his help. She's fleeing from agents of the Universal Church of Truth. She's considered a heretic and needs to be killed. Warlock kills the agents, but not before they succeed in murdering her.

In Warlock's first solo adventure, Marvel Premiere #1, the High Evolutionary gave Warlock a stone called the soul gem to wear on his forehead. In the following stories it was merely used for firing power blasts. That's probably all Roy Thomas intended at the time. It was just a weapon. In this story Jim Starlin develops it further.

Warlock says, "I've long realised that there is more power in this soul gem than I've ever dared utilise. For this dark jewel draws its strength from the sinister chaotic ends of infinity, and such power is to be feared".

He uses the soul gem to raise the woman from the dead to ask her about the Universal Church of Truth. She resents being brought back to life, but she gives Warlock the information he wants. The church was founded by someone called the Magus 5000 years ago. It preaches peace and love, but anyone who denies that Magus is God is killed. Whole planets have been destroyed if the population refused to believe. The church's leader, the Matriarch, is cruel beyond words.

In the third chapter, "The Secret of the Magus", the Magus himself appears to speak to Warlock. Over the following few pages Warlock battles countless creatures, but then stops, realising that he's only fighting his own inner demons. The Magus tells Warlock that they're one and the same being. Magus is the Latin word for Warlock.

The Magus disappears, and Warlock realises he has to battle himself.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (3 Stars)

I'm writing this review with a heavy heart. After the last few disappointing films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), I expected "Quantumania" to turn things around. After all, the last two Ant-Man films were brilliant. I was excited as soon as I saw the posters hanging at my local cinema. Strangely, no trailers were shown in the months leading up to the release.

It's interesting to see Kang the Conqueror appear in the Quantum Realm. It's a strange place to find him, but the story is that he's been exiled by the other multiversal Kangs who consider him a threat. Couldn't they just have killed him? They should have known that any of their alternate selves would be ingenious enough to escape. Kang's skin colour is wrong, but racial mistakes are something I've grown used to in Marvel films. It's more important to have racial diversity than to make good films.

Kang's history is confused, even in the comics, due to different writers adding their own details over the years. When Kang first appeared in Avengers #8 he was a super-villain from the future. He was born in the 30th Century, but he travelled into the past to become the pharaoh Rama-Tut, and then he travelled to the 40th Century, where he conquered the Earth. He became obsessed with wanting to conquer Earth in the 20th Century, foolishly forgetting the temporal paradoxes that would happen if he succeeded. Even so, as future writers showed us, every time he travelled into the past he made changes that created new branches in the timelines; i.e. Kang himself became the creator of most of the alternate universes in the multiverse.

The Kangs from different branches of the multiverse came together to form a council. Some of the Kangs are considered inferior and destroyed. Kang in the MCU is being built up to be a big bad villain more powerful than Thanos. That makes me groan. In the comics Thanos is more powerful than Kang even without the Infinity Gauntlet. It's a problem that the MCU has to deal with. Now that Thanos is gone, a bigger threat is needed to keep the viewers entertained. Then a bigger threat, and an even bigger threat, etc. The MCU can't return to simple villains like Doctor Octopus and the Kingpin. I was annoyed that the Loki TV series belittled the infinity gems, saying that the Time Variance Authority used them as paperweights. 

And what about MODOK? He's a perfect example of the MCU's mix and match approach to making films. He was shown in Tales of Suspense #94 as the leader of AIM. The MCU has made him Kang's creation. I'm clenching my fists in rage.

The Quantum Realm is the name given to the Marvel Comics microverse, where the ruler is the Psycho-Man. Okay, I admit that he has a silly name. I've never claimed that Marvel Comics were perfect, and even the great Stan Lee had his off days. Sometimes he didn't think far enough about the logical consequences of his stories. Writers in the following decades tried to make changes to correct his errors, but they usually made things worse.

"Quantumania" isn't the MCU's worst film. That honour is reserved for "The Eternals". But it's the MCU film that has disappointed me the most. It could have been so good, but the end result is average at best. I doubt the MCU will ever get any better.

VFB Stuttgart Season 2022 Match 22

Schalke 04 – VfB Stuttgart

Date: 25th February 2023, 3:30 pm

Result: 2 – 1

It's dark days for VfB Stuttgart. This wasn't a match that the team could afford to lose. I'm sure they didn't expect to lose. After last week's victory against Köln, they must have thought it would be easy to defeat the bottom club in the league table. Next week Stuttgart will face Bayern München, tough opponents. I'm hoping for the best, but dreading the worst.

1.	Dortmund	46
2.	Bayern München	43
3.	Union Berlin	43
4.	RB Leipzig	42
5.	SC Freiburg	40
6.	Eintracht Frankfurt	38
7.	Wolfsburg	33
8.	Mainz	32
9.	Werder Bremen	30
10.	Mönchengladbach	29
11.	Leverkusen	27
12.	Köln	26
13.	Augsburg	24
14.	Hertha	20
15.	VfB Stuttgart	19
16.	Hoffenheim	19
17.	VfL Bochum	19
18.	Schalke 04	16

Yes, Madam (4 Stars)

"Yes, Madam" is an action comedy film made in Hong Kong in 1985. It's significant for two reasons: it was Cynthia Rothrock's first film, and it was Michelle Yeoh's first leading role. Michelle is the Madam in the title.

Richard Nornen is visiting Hong Kong to deliver evidence on microfilm about the criminal activities of a supposedly respectable businessman called Tin. An assassin is sent to kill Richard in his hotel and retrieve the microfilm. He kills Richard, but while he's searching for the microfilm he's disturbed by room service. Except it isn't room service, it's two petty criminals called Aspirin and Strepsils. They see Richard's dead body and think he's sleeping, so they steal his wallet and his passport. The assassin would have shot them, but the room is visited by Inspector Ng (Michelle Yeoh), who wants to collect the microfilm.

Inspector Ng assumes at first that the thieves are the murderers, so she pursues them. The assassin assumes that they have the microfilm, and he's correct, although they don't know it. The microfilm was tucked into his passport, behind his photo. The thieves sell the passport to a colleague who forges documents.

The English police inspector Carrie Morris (Cynthia Rothrock) visits Hong Kong to help with the case. She knows that the microfilm was hidden in the passport. Aspirin and Strepsils are arrested, but soon declared innocent. They're released, but they know the assassin is hunting them, so they beg the police to arrest them again.

The film is difficult to pin down to a single genre. There's a lot of slapstick comedy, but there's also a lot of explicit violence, especially in the opening scenes. Michelle Yeoh says that it was intended to be a film that the family could watch together, but this intention didn't succeed. "Yes, Madam" has been given an 18 certificate in most countries for its excessive violence. The best scenes are doubtlessly the martial arts battles in which the two women take on hordes of bad guys. The humour is annoying.

There's a blunder in Cynthia Rothrock's first scene when she arrives at the airport.

Carrie Morris is forced to defend herself against an assailant. Her high kicks reveal that she's wearing blue panties. That's hot!

But seconds later we see that she's wearing yellow panties. Did Cynthia have to change her underwear between takes? There's only a brief glimpse for a few film frames. Evidently the film makers didn't think anyone would be perverted enough to pause the film to look up Cynthia's skirt. They didn't reckon with me.

I like Carrie's attitude. Inspector Ng plays everything by the book, but Carrie is an aggressive police inspector who bullies men that she's arrested. She beats up helpless men to get confessions out of them. I wouldn't confess to her. Not too quickly. I'd let her beat me up first.

I wonder if Carrie was portrayed like this for reasons of racial profiling. Did the director Cory Yuen assume that the English police are brutal?

Michelle Yeoh isn't just beautiful, she's an outstanding actress. She's been making films since 1984, but she still hasn't won an Oscar. This year she finally has a chance. She's been nominated as Best Actress for "Everything everywhere all at once". She was also nominated for this year's Baftas but didn't win. Let's wait to see what happens on 13th March. If she doesn't win, she should send Cynthia Rothrock to beat up the judges.

The Blu-ray was released in 2022, and it contains a new interview with Cynthia Rothrock. She says that she made her first seven movies in Hong Kong before she made her first American films. She must have counted wrong. According to IMDB she made thirteen films in Hong Kong from 1985 to 1990.

If I were only judging the action scenes, I would have rated this film five stars. I've reduced it by a star because of the non-funny comedy scenes.

	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Smallville 2.07 - Lineage

Click here to watch the podcast.

This is an interesting and unusual episode. There's very little action, but a lot of drama. In the podcast Tom Welling says that it's an episode that he'd recommend to anyone who's never watched "Smallville". I disagree with him. It's a good episode, but it's untypical, so a first-time viewer would get the wrong impression of the series.

A woman called Rachel Dunleavy arrives in Smallville. She claims to be Clark's mother. This is because she gave her son Lucas to the adoption agency Metropolis United Charities, and records show that only one child was ever given for adoption by this agency before it closed: Clark Kent. This obviously can't be, because Clark came to Earth in a spaceship.

Rachel nursed Lionel Luthor's wife while she was ill. During this time she also had an affair with Lionel. Lucas is Lionel Luthor's illegitimate son. She tells Lex about this, and Lex tells Clark that they might be brothers. Clark demands a full explanation from his father.

On the day of the meteor shower Jonathan and Martha Kent found Clark walking naked in a corn field. Jonathan loaded the spaceship onto his truck and was driving home, when Lionel Luthor stopped him. He said that his son had been injured in the meteor shower. Jonathan drove Lionel and Lex to the hospital. Lionel promised Jonathan that he would do anything for the man who'd saved his son's life. Jonathan and Martha wanted to adopt Clark, but they couldn't tell anyone how they'd found him, so they asked for Lionel to somehow arrange it. Lionel founded the adoption agency, granted Clark to the Kents, then closed the agency.

This doesn't explain what happened to Lucas. He was also given to the agency, but there are no records of him being adopted. Lionel claims that he died before he was one year old, but this is a lie. We see a photo of Lionel and Lucas together when he was an older child.

The Kents were grateful to Lionel for his help, but then Lionel asked for a favour in return. He wanted to buy land from the Ross family, presumably to build a fertiliser plant, but they'd turned him down. Lionel knew that the Kents and the Rosses were friends, so he asked Jonathan to persuade them to change their mind. When Jonathan refused, Lionel hinted that he might expose the irregularities in the adoption. This is the incident that led to Jonathan's animosity towards the Luthors.

Rachel asks Clark for a DNA test. He's worried that the results might reveal his alien origins, so he breaks into the lab at night and contaminates the sample. Rachel suspects that Lionel Luthor is responsible, so she kidnaps Lex and threatens to kill him if Lionel doesn't publicly announce that Clark is his son. Only Clark's intervention saves Lex's life. Rachel is declared insane and put into an institution.

In another story, Lana visits Henry Small, the man who had an affair with her mother, to tell him she's his daughter. His initial reaction is to deny it, but later in the day he visits the Talon to tell her he wants to find out if it's true.

In yet another story, Chloe says that her mother wants nothing to do with her. This episode is all about broken parent-child relationships: Clark and his false mother; Lana and her father; Chloe and her mother; Lionel and his son Lucas.

In the podcast Michael Rosenbaum rang Al Gough to check if it's true that Lex was about five years older than Clark. I thought it had already been established early in the series. After this Annette O'Toole appears as a guest by video. She's a prolific actress, with many roles in film and television from the 1960's to the present, but I confess that I've hardly seen her. The first time I saw her was in the 1990 version of "IT", and I remember thinking to myself, "Wow! What an actress!" "Smallville" was only the second time I saw her. If I had to pick the two most outstanding actors in the series, I'd name Annette O'Toole and John Glover, in that order. I don't say that to put the other actors down in any way. Tom Welling is the first to admit that he was a novice, watching and learning from the more experienced actors around him. Interestingly, Annette says that she watched Tom watching the others. She could see that he was trying to learn.

Tom also says that he thought Michael Rosenbaum was a great actor. Michael is amused by this, because he says he was also a beginner at the time. It's all relative.

Tom spoke about the different way in which John Schneider and Annette O'Toole worked in the series. John came into the series with his own ideas about what he wanted to do and how he wanted to do it. Annette looked at how the others were playing their roles and adapted herself to them. Annette agreed that this was the case.

There's a scene in the episode in which Lex Luthor is tied to a chair which falls over backwards. Tom wanted to know if this was Michael Rosenbaum himself or his stuntman. Michael can't remember doing this, but he admitted that it was something dangerous. After listening to the podcast I watched the scene frame by frame. Is it Michael or not? It looks like him, but I can't be sure. His eyebrows look darker than in the previous scenes.

When rating the episode, Michael and Tom both rated it highly, two and two and a half roses respectively, whereas Ryan Tellez rated it lower. I can see the reason for the different opinions. Ryan was disappointed that there wasn't more action.

The Talon is advertising a silent film festival yet again. Greg Beeman is still cutting costs. Close examination shows that it's the same scene that was used in "Stray" and "Nocturne".

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Night at the Museum (4 Stars)

Two years ago I sat down with my grandson Oliver to watch "Night at the Museum". At the time he'd never watched any films, only YouTube videos, so he didn't have enough patience to last the whole film. He gave up after 45 minutes. Today I tried again. Success! He loved the film, and he wants to watch the sequels.

I watched it in German, for Oliver's sake. Usually German dubbing is good quality, but this time I wasn't satisfied. The German dialogue is very fast and excited, even when the original English is spoken clearly. The voice actors put their own interpretation into the roles. I don't appreciate that.

No, the Hungarian bodybuilder Krisztina Sereny doesn't appear in the film. I can't think of anything else to write about the film, so the photo is my way of apologising. Is anyone interested in a gallery of her photos?

Success Rate:  + 3.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Inside Out (4 Stars)

Wow! Is it really eight years since I saw "Inside Out" in the cinema? I still remember it so clearly.

It's a children's film that isn't a children's film. What I mean is that it's packaged as a children's film with funny cartoon characters, but the film's psychological implications are too deep for a small child to understand it.

The film's premise is that everyone is governed by five personality traits: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust. They work as a committee, governing the actions of a person and archiving the memories. The most important memories are promoted to core memories that become the person's underlying characteristics. The five personality traits are portrayed as five cartoon characters with the same gender as the person they rule over. The head of the committee varies from person to person. In the case of 11-year-old Riley, her ruling trait is Joy.

Riley had a happy life growing up in Minnesota. Her parents loved her, she had good friends, she was successful at ice hockey, and she lived in an idyllic environment. Then her family moved to San Francisco, into an ugly little house. She no longer had her friends by her side, and her father became agitated by the pressure of his new job. Sadness begins to take over inside her head, but Joy fights to retain control.

It's a complex story, and I won't tell you what happens, but I'll give you the resolution: Riley can't settle down in San Francisco until Joy accepts that Sadness has a part to play in her life.

The repercussions are mind-blowing. The film has an age certificate of 0 years. That only means that there's nothing in the film that's harmful to young children. But what age is the film suitable for? I mean, how old do children have to be to understand it? Thinking of myself, I would probably have understood it when I was 12, but I was advanced for my age. Other 12-year-olds might pick out things that they like while not understanding the overall themes. Come to think of it, many adults might not understand the film's psychological implications.

Despite being a comedy, the film was written with the assistance of two leading psychologists. It was important for the interplay of the base personality traits in the mind to be portrayed accurately. The hard work put into making the film has resulted in an outstanding work of art. In 2016 it received the Oscar for the Best Animated Film at the Academy Awards.

Success Rate:  + 2.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Shazam (5 Stars)

Netflix Thursday #25

Tonight I shouted "Shazam!" five times, but nothing happened. I didn't turn into a superhero. Then I remembered that it only works for someone who's pure of heart. Okay, I wouldn't call myself a bad guy, but the last time I checked Lust is one of the seven deadly sins, and Lust is one of the things that most motivates me. So no, I can't become a superhero.

Let's get to the film itself.

When I watched "Shazam" in the cinema four years ago I liked it, but I wasn't overly impressed. Recently I've seen the trailer for the second Shazam film in cinemas, and I find it hilarious. I don't remember that a trailer has ever made me laugh out loud. This has prompted me to watch the first film again, and guess what? I love it! The humour is so ridiculous, but it works.

Billy Batson is a 14-year-old boy who's granted magical super powers by an ancient magician. Billy isn't perfect either, but the magician is desperate to find a successor after being attacked by Thaddeus Silvana, an evil scientist who wants the power for himself.

Billy looks like an adult when he magically transforms into a hero, even though he still has the awkwardness of a teenager in the middle of his hormonal changes. Come to think of it, Billy visits a strip club twice in the film, so maybe there's still a chance for me. Let me shout "Shazam!" again.

As a new hero, Billy isn't in full control of his powers. He doesn't even know what his powers are. He has to work his way through a checklist of what he can and can't do.

Super strength – Yes.

Super speed – Yes.

Invulnerability – Yes.

Flight – Yes, although it needs practise.

Invisibility – No.

Probably the biggest surprise in the film is that the five children in his foster family also become superheroes.

They all turn into adults, so it's difficult to tell which one is which. The girls are obvious, but I can't recognise the boys. Unlike Billy, they immediately have full control of their powers, but he's still the team's leader.

Success Rate:  + 2.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Off-Topic: Stuttgart Fasching Parade 2023

I spent this afternoon in Stuttgart watching the yearly Fasching parade. I say yearly, but it was cancelled the last two years because of the Corona pandemic. It's good to see Germany's pagan culture being celebrated again. In past years I stood at the Schloßplatz, the central square where the parade ends, but this year I stood at the corner of Tübinger Straße and Eberhard Straße. That's a better place, because the parade did a 90 degree turn, so the corner was used for the witches to pause and put on small shows before continuing. It was also wide enough for the witches to crack their whips.

This year the Stuttgart City Council banned the use of confetti, but nobody paid attention to the ban. Confetti was thrown liberally, and so much was left on the ground that the children were picking up handfuls and throwing it at one another afterwards.

There was an attempt to disrupt the parade at the very corner where I was standing. Stuttgart's garbage collectors are on strike. They stood behind the barriers chanting slogans, and they were throwing whole buckets of confetti onto the road. The police spoke to them, but there were no incidents, and the noise from the parade soon drowned them out.

One of the witches drew a heart on my head with a green marker pen. My bald head makes a good canvas. I would have left it, but a second witch came by later and smeared black ink on my head, just making a mess.