Dual-team dichotomy doctrine

[The Night Phantom]

Conventional wisdom has it that, with the establishment of Mighty Avengers, we will have two Avengers teams formed from the schism of Civil War.

This, of course, is not the first time the Avengers have been split into two teams. The 1980s and ’90s saw an expansion team based on the West Coast, with the geography being the only definitive distinction in the two groups’ raisons d’être.

In the past, I’ve run into the suggestion of an expansion team based on threat level, e.g., a “cosmic-level” team in addition to a more Earth-based team.

Assuming that the notion of simultaneous autonomous Avengers teams is a good thing, what is a good basis for the difference between the teams? Was the East Coast–West Coast distinction “good enough”? Is the putative Civil War schism ripe for exploration? Would the cosmic/Earth dichotomy work, both for readers and for the Avengers themselves? Is there some other multi-team framework that you’d like to see?

[Tana Nile]

I'm not sure how much difference there will be between the two teams; I'm assuming Civil War influences the line-ups. Certainly the MA team looks like it is primarily pro-reg folks. What puzzles me some is this quote from Bendis in Wizard 180, regarding whether you have to read both books:

"...for those who read both, a very unique experience awaits you. The same story is being told from completely different points, and those points are going to come closer and closer as the year goes on."

This could be taken a number of ways. Maybe what seems like 2 different stories actually converge at some point. Or are the two Avengers teams at odds, so we see two different sides of the same story? or something else entirely?

I can say that I am already not happy with the inclusion of Ares, but I did not read his mini-series so I have no idea how they have ret-conned him to this point. I just remember the Avengers kicking his ass rather easily in the past.

I still like the idea of a west coast team, but then being from California, I always felt we were left out of the MU.

[Doctor Bong]

I would have liked FOUR Avengers teams: the original team based in NYC, a revitalized WCA team and a couple of new ones, probably based in Houston & Seattle, respectively.

[Doctor Bong]

With a common pool of reservists for all 4 teams... In my book, there's no such thing as too many Avengers...!!!

[The Night Phantom]

tananile said:

I still like the idea of a west coast team, but then being from California, I always felt we were left out of the MU.

Hmm…

• West Coast Avengers
• Iron Man
• Spider-Woman
• Champions
• Black Goliath
• Werewolf by Night
• Runaways
• Wonder Man
• Daredevil
• Ghost Rider

…Being from Indiana, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Still, with such a rich history to draw on, the return of a West Coast Avengers team would be quite welcome!

ua2 said:

I would have liked FOUR Avengers teams: the original team based in NYC, a revitalized WCA team and a couple of new ones, probably based in Houston & Seattle, respectively.

I’m not sure the Avengers need to canvas the United States quite so thoroughly. Instead of Houston and Seattle, how about some bases abroad, such as Europe and the other side of the Pacific (Japan or Australia)?

[spiderwasp]

I always liked the West Coast Avengers and don't think you really have some high concept to justify having two teams. All you really need is good characters on each team and good writers. I'd love to see 4 good solid teams, although, I fear that Marvel would just have Bendis writing them all.

[Doctor Doom]

My personal bet is simple:

New Avengers will continue as what it has always been- a team comprised of Captain America and a load of people Bendis likes.

Mighty Avengers will be to quieten the old Avengers fan by giving them a load of real Avengers plus one or two Not-Avengers. (Sentry, Ares)

As for converging storylines- time will tell.

[dlw66]

I think the converging storylines is interesting -- it would be moreso with two different writers being given a particular problem, and a set number of issues to solve it. That way, in one month's issues, perhaps released on the same day, the reader would see twin resolutions of said problem (in fact, interest could even be heightened if both teams came to the same solution!). And that in itself could present the next problem. It has potential for a nice ongoing concept.

Concerning WCA, I personally felt the book struggled right from the get-go with very poor art by Al Milgrom (who I have maligned elsewhere). It really wasn't much above what a decent junior high kid could have done, and very much paled in comparison to what Buscema and Palmer were putting out in the parent book. As to the team, the line-up was OK -- it could be argued that it was much stronger in terms of having longtime Avengers than the East Coast team of the same period. However, instead of giving us an anchor to the Avengers mythos, we instead got stupid villains like Master Pandemonium. -*snore*-

I truly felt the high point of the book was Byrne's run, and it certainly was far from perfect. For the first time we saw Dark Phoenix ripped off (which we would again in Disassembled), I did not care for the way the Vision issue was resolved (but it's a heckuva lot better than what we see now), but it was very cool to have the Original Human Torch back.

[The Night Phantom]

spiderwasp said:

I always liked the West Coast Avengers and don't think you really have some high concept to justify having two teams. All you really need is good characters on each team and good writers.

“High” or otherwise, in my opinion some defining concept should be used to distinguish one Avengers series from another. But heck, it doesn’t even have to be multiple teams—how about one good team starring in more than one ongoing regular series? If it can work for individual characters like Spider-Man and Batman, can it work just as well for a team?

Under this scenario, each series could be defined by the kinds of stories it tells. Here’s my description of the distinctions among the Spider-Man comics of the mid-1980s:

nightphantom said:

• Amazing Spider-Man continued the general Spider-Man superheroic tradition as begun by Lee and Ditko, albeit in a modern style.
• Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man told “grim and gritty” stories.
• Web of Spider-Man tended toward the offbeat.
• Marvel Tales reprinted the old Lee–Ditko and Lee–Romita stories from the early days of Amazing.
• Additionally, Web had just replaced Marvel Team-Up, which focused on Spider-Man’s encounters with fellow heroes.

Similarly, one Avengers series might showcase cosmic multi-part epics, one might specialize in “done-in-one” adventures a little more Earthly in scope, and a third might revolve around character dramas (interpersonal relationships, confrontations with the past, etc.).

Would you prefer other distinguishing themes for disparate series about the same Avengers team? Or do you think the concept as a whole would likely not work?

[dlw66]

The major issue I would see with the one-team, multiple books premise is continuity. In an individual book, one might assume that we are just seeing all of the adventures of a particular person. With a team book, and in the proposed case more than one team book, it might become a bit muddy seeing two books of major adventures occurring simultaneously while the more popular (marketable?) characters are also going through their own individual-book adventures. Perhaps not as big a deal as I might think, but certainly some degree of concern for continuity buffs.

[Tana Nile]

dlw66 said:

Concerning WCA, I personally felt the book struggled right from the get-go with very poor art by Al Milgrom (who I have maligned elsewhere). It really wasn't much above what a decent junior high kid could have done, and very much paled in comparison to what Buscema and Palmer were putting out in the parent book. As to the team, the line-up was OK -- it could be argued that it was much stronger in terms of having longtime Avengers than the East Coast team of the same period. However, instead of giving us an anchor to the Avengers mythos, we instead got stupid villains like Master Pandemonium. -*snore*-

I truly felt the high point of the book was Byrne's run, and it certainly was far from perfect. For the first time we saw Dark Phoenix ripped off (which we would again in Disassembled), I did not care for the way the Vision issue was resolved (but it's a heckuva lot better than what we see now), but it was very cool to have the Original Human Torch back.

Definitely agree with you on the Milgrom art; it always looked so sloppy to me. We did get some solid Avengers, but as you said, the villains tended to be lacking, and the whole book had that feeling of being "the other Avengers book". While Byrne's art improved the situation, I'll probably never forgive him for what he did to the Vision.

As for the Mighty Avengers, doesn't it seem like the line-up for this book is almost over-powered? Sentry, Ares, Wonder Man, Iron Man, Ms. Marvel - all pretty heavy hitters. The only time I can recall such a powerful Avengers line up is back around 150-ish, with Thor, Iron Man, Vision, and Wonder Man all on the team.

[dlw66]

True -- strong era. How about the Kree/Skrull War? Thor, IM, Vision, Goliath II?

[The Night Phantom]

dlw66 said:

The major issue I would see with the one-team, multiple books premise is continuity. In an individual book, one might assume that we are just seeing all of the adventures of a particular person. With a team book, and in the proposed case more than one team book, it might become a bit muddy seeing two books of major adventures occurring simultaneously while the more popular (marketable?) characters are also going through their own individual-book adventures.

Oh, I’m sure Wolverine can handle it. He’s also joining the FF, Omega Flight, and the Thunderbolts, right? ;D

[dlw66]

Sure -- since covers these days often don't have anything to do with the innards (an ideology-outgrowth of the demise of covers with word balloons, I believe), Marvel could just have "Wolverine Month" and watch the sales figures of all of their books skyrocket!

[The Night Phantom]

dlw66 said:

Sure -- since covers these days often don't have anything to do with the innards (a ideology-outgrowth of the demise of covers with word balloons, I believe), Marvel could just have "Wolverine Month" and watch the sales figures of all of their books skyrocket!

Kind-of makes me wish Marvel were still publishing the likes of Top Dog and Ewoks…

Regarding the continuity problem…well, obviously this depends on the care taken by editors and writers. In today’s Marvel I don’t have much faith in the editorial side, but there are some writers who likely would work hard on continuity—say, a Kurt Busiek, a Dan Slott, a Robert Kirkman.

[dlw66]

Concerning Marvel these days: when my pal Don Kramer almost took a contract at Marvel over his present employer DC, he was kind of sad when DC came through with the better deal. He'd been a Marvel zombie as a kid like most of the rest of us. But, I am so happy for him that it has worked out the way it has. There are people over at DC who genuinely care about the vast stable of characters and their history, and it's been great to see Don work his way from Dr. Fate to JSA to now doing a Batman monthly. I don't think he'd have liked working for this current Marvel company.

[daned]

Hang on, let me get this straight:

Bendis said "...for those who read both, a very unique experience awaits you. The same story is being told from completely different points, and those points are going to come closer and closer as the year goes on."

Does this mean we see two issues a month where the same nothing happens?