Avengers 500

[uberwolf]

After reading Johns and Austen's run I thought they were standard Avengers fair. Some of it good, some not so good. But starting to read Avengers 500 and seeing BENDIS! formulated cutesy banter between Hawkeye and Ant Man made me want to retch. I couldn't even read it again.

Some of you might not know this, but I really hate BENDIS! work....

[balok]

Yeah. If the Emperor wants me on the Dark Side all he needs to is show me a picture of Bendis! No taunts necessary, the picture alone is enough to bring hatred and rage boiling to the surface.

It's truly amazing to me that anyone likes this hack.

[thew40]

It's pretty bad, really.

The coloring is nice, though.

~W~

[uberwolf]

That I can agree on, the coloring was nice.

[thew40]

Also, it has a nice pace/beat to it. The script is pretty decent.

Other than that . . . it's poop.

~W~

[Shiryu]

I'm confused with the numbering, which one is #500? the one after Wanda destroys the mansion, with the final pages by Perez?

EDIT: I found the cover, but still can't link it to the story inside

[dlw66]

thew40 said:

The coloring is nice, though.

~W~

I missed this comment the first time I read your post, W. I would wholeheartedly agree with you -- as much as I sometimes dislike "modern" art (and some of it is breathtakingly beautiful), the impovements in computerized coloring even enhance a guy as bad as Lenil Yu. Think what it would have done to Adams or Buscema -- Michelangelo and Raphael to be sure!

And those ain't ninja turtles.

[Doctor Doom]

I disagree on one thing. I think 500 reads better when you read it in sequence.

Because really, as awful as it may be, I was almost relieved to see the Avengers blow up rather than see Austen pen them for one more issue.

Ah but my poor Vision.

[sharkar]

shiryu said:

I'm confused with the numbering, which one is #500? the one after Wanda destroys the mansion, with the final pages by Perez?

EDIT: I found the cover, but still can't link it to the story inside

#500 is the start of AD. It's the one that opens with Clint and Scott's banter about their number one "can't haves"; and among other events, there's the attack on the mansion; Scott's death; Tony acting drunk at the U.N. though he hasn't had a drink (with Wanda looking on, innocently); the appearance of the Vision and the army of Ultrons; the truly gruesome sight of the Vision being ripped in two by She-Hulk; and so on.

I'm in the minority but I just can't get used to today's coloring. I know the advanced technology renders everything more "three dimensional", and I have seen some lovely effects at times, but overall I find it too heavy, slick and saturated.

[dlw66]

Perhaps I should clarify...

When the coloring is too heavy, slick and saturated, that's a bad thing. When it provides depth, or layers that allow certain aspects of the page to pop out toward the reader in a way that standard 4-color could not do, then it's good.

As Neal Adams criticized DC back in the day for their woefully small color pallette, then we must now, too, look back on some of the art of yore and see it as somewhat flat IN COMPARISON to some of today's coloring.

I hope that clarifies; I in no way dislike my treasured memories. But I do have an appreciation for what modern methods can do in terms of said depth, et al.

[thew40]

docdoom said:

Ah but my poor Vision.

Did someone poke your eyes out?

(sorry - it seems Nutcase took over for a moment)


Avengers # 500 (and all of AD as a whole) was flawed in so many ways. I've discussed them a little further elsewhere, but ultimately, there was no need for a story like this. The disasters the Avengers faced were well done, but the whole story is just so overly-depressing. The deaths became meaningless after a while. Ant-Man, I can handle. Even the destruction of the Vision (though an awesome two-page spread it made) was pushing the line. By the time Hawkeye died (ugh), it was just too much.

"Avengers Disassembled" was an unwarranted and unnecessary attack on the Avengers. There's no logic to it, no need for it, and ultimately, a poor decision.

The whole idea of "Avengers Disassembled" was to tear down the old Avengers and replace the team with characters Bendis either:

1) had a knack for writing well (Spider-Man, Iron Fist, Luke Cage);
2) were iconic Avengers (Captain America, Iron Man);
3) were characters that Bendis felt needed more light (Spider-Woman, Ronin/Echo, Sentry);
4) or were media-darlings (Wolverine)

While I like "New Avengers," the way in which the old team was just shuffled away was sloppy. I don't even think Bendis should have written "Avengers Disassembled." He tore everything down in a way that was just so depressing and over-the-top. It was like he was trying to do his very best Mark Millar imitation.

It was a huge mistake.

Now, "New Avengers" on the other hand is a much stronger book and works more to Bendis' strengths. These are characters that he's better at writing than traditional Avengers. Which seems pretty unfair to traditional Avengers fans.


SO. Yeah, I don't like everything Marvel/Bendis produces.

~W~

[sharkar]

dlw66 said:

Perhaps I should clarify...

When the coloring is too heavy, slick and saturated, that's a bad thing. When it provides depth, or layers that allow certain aspects of the page to pop out toward the reader in a way that standard 4-color could not do, then it's good.

As Neal Adams criticized DC back in the day for their woefully small color pallette, then we must now, too, look back on some of the art of yore and see it as somewhat flat IN COMPARISON to some of today's coloring.

I hope that clarifies; I in no way dislike my treasured memories. But I do have an appreciation for what modern methods can do in terms of said depth, et al.

ITA with your points here--and elsewhere-- about coloring, dlw. I can certainly see the difference today's technology makes and yes, the results are superior.

But for whatever reason, I prefer the old "look" to comics...flatness and all. Probably just me being an old stick-in-the-mud.

I just need more exposure to today's books, I guess. And I appreciate that you took the time to expand on the topic, even though your original post was-- as always--clear and well thought out.

[redstatecap]

The pencilling and inking styles have also changed from the 4-color to the modern computer coloring process.
Compare a couple of artists from each era. Take John Byrne in the 1980s vs. Steve Epting now.
While Epting is certainly a very, very good artist, it's obvious that the figure art is far less detailed because it doesn't have to be. The modern coloring process provides the depth and the shading that in the past could only be done at the pencilling and inking stages.
It's almost an apples-to-oranges comparison.

RSC

[The EVIL Dr. Bolty]

sharkar said:

But for whatever reason, I prefer the old "look" to comics...flatness and all. Probably just me being an old stick-in-the-mud.

I just need more exposure to today's books, I guess.

For some great modern coloring (and awesome superhero stories), I recommend Invincible...it has a beautiful color palette while retaining a somewhat flat look.

Best use of computer coloring I've seen would go to Rod Espinosa, another guy who gives his colors a flat look. Espinosa is particularly notable for having crystal-clear storytelling in sequences that feature black battleships with black weapons fighting in the night sky.

Really, bad use of computer coloring is just a little too common. Colorists like Chris Sotomayer just go so nuts with all the effects and darkness that the end result is unreadable and ugly.

[sharkar]

Thanks very much for the recommendations, drbolty!


And welcome aboard!