|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 20, 2007 21:33:36 GMT -5
and I'm sure it'll get pointed out , my statement isn't likely to be noticed by the company, but at least I took my stand.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 21, 2007 1:58:08 GMT -5
Bullseye crippling Flag wasn't as bad as Black Adam poking that guys eyes out. Cuz Black Adam poked the guys eyes right out the back of his head along with his brain. Comics are inherently violent overall, but its about how graphic and bloody this violence is portrayed. Marvel's main line keeps the blood down to reasonable levels for the most part and don't have much wholescale decapitation and people being exploded.
Definately way more partial nudity and mature situations though so I guess its all negated anyway.
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 21, 2007 2:27:59 GMT -5
And, bringing us back to the main subject...
Part of what I like about this series, so far, is the lack of ultra-violent, grim'n'gritty, and generally all around un-fun that has plagued the genre over the last several years. We even have a convincing apocalyptic menace without needing to dismember people. OK, so we've got a bare butt in this book (Which is actually in character, as Ultron rarely covers itself). Far less offensive than the ultra-violence, IMO. Back in the 80s, X-Men saw the characters naked, quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 21, 2007 4:05:19 GMT -5
And you know Balok, I'm not sure I;ve heard anyone but you, or outside this site anyway, call this the "rest age." I know IGN called it the "New Golden Age", I've heard others say we should christen it the Marvel Age, still others the New Age or whatever, but Rust Age? That seems to be your gimmick
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 21, 2007 10:35:22 GMT -5
So, lets give Balok some props for originality, then, I say...!
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 21, 2007 12:08:31 GMT -5
I never claimed "Rust Age" was a generally accepted term. I came up with it because "Iron Age" is a widely accepted term for the "grim 'n gritty" period of the 90's, following the Silver Age. Since I believe the quality of most comics has corroded still further, I consider "Rust Age" a fitting name. I would certainly never called it a "New Golden Age" even if I liked it, because I generally don't favor slapping "New" on an existing label. Look what happened when the dubbed a certain artistic style "Modernism" and then they needed something for what came next. You guessed it, we got "Post Modernism" out of that. Yuck. If you don't like "Rust Age" then you could go with a continuation of the Iron Age, or you could use "Reality Age" or "Grit Age" or "Steel Age" or something like that. I figured Rust Age was simpler and more euphonious that "Bendis Makes Me Hurl Age" or "Fire Quesada Now Age" or "Millar Doesn't Get It Age" On the actual subject of the book, I will say that it is probably as close to the Avengers I remember as Marvel has yet managed to come. But it's still not close enough for my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 21, 2007 12:10:10 GMT -5
and I'm sure it'll get pointed out , my statement isn't likely to be noticed by the company, but at least I took my stand. Of course, you have to hope a lot of other folks are making the same statement. And that depends on each person making the statement; taking his money out of their pockets, doing his part. It may be that the statement of those like Doom, who like the book, will be louder. There's no predicting. But if we each don't make the statement, we have no right to complain if Marvel doesn't change.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 21, 2007 13:02:35 GMT -5
Actually I've heard "Rust Age" more than once, so it's entirely possible that people are drawing the same analogies independantly.
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 21, 2007 13:10:03 GMT -5
I never claimed "Rust Age" was a generally accepted term. I came up with it because "Iron Age" is a widely accepted term for the "grim 'n gritty" period of the 90's, following the Silver Age. Since I believe the quality of most comics has corroded still further, I consider "Rust Age" a fitting name. You forgot about the Bronze Age. The Silver Age ended a couple of decades before the 90s. The Bronze Age started at Marvel in 1967, when Roy Thomas stepped out of Stan Lee's shadow and began really doing things his way, and several artists, like Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, John Buscema, and Barry Smith changed the entire look and feel of comics, along with a social conciousness developing, superhero comics talking about real world issues. The points where the change from the Silver Age style is especially noticable are Avengers #57 (introducing the Vision) and X-Men #50 (with that beautiful Steranko cover featuring Polaris). The Bronze Age hit DC in 1970, with the importing of some Marvel talent to revitalize their characters, as the once innovative Silver Age style built around writers like Gardner Fox had become stale by this point. That's how these cycles work. We start an innvoative period, what defined that innovative period becomes old and tired, we go into a decline, then something new and fresh comes along. The Bronze Age ended with the DC Implosion in the late 70s, when things had gotten so bad that DC cancelled a ton of books, and Marvel people were openly discussing what seemed to be the inevitablility of what happened when, not if, DC closed shop and Marvel began licensing their characters. What we now call the Iron Age just sort of slipped in there, and it's hard to pick a specific date for it. The easiest place to start it would be the Dark Phoenix Saga and it's immediate follow-up, Days of Future Past, in X-Men, since those stories not only had a huge impact that would lead to the next revival, but would see so much of the next era's stories being variations of their themes (not to mention placing X-Men in it's dominat position in the industry). But, independant comics like Elfquest were already around, which led to the importance of Comic Cons and comics specialty shops, which would ultimately lead to comics vanishing from convenience stores and the like (People like to talk about the candy stores where they bought comics, but how many candy stores existed by the late 70s?). At DC, the revival began with the Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans. It's now called by some the Iron Age. One thing about these eras, though... They don't get defined and named until after they've ended. The period before 1955 wasn't called the Golden Age until well into the Silver Age. The term Silver Age wasn't used until a few years into the Bronze Age, and so on. We don't see the defining moments until some time after they happen. Well, it's never going to be exactly like a 1970s comic, because it's no longer the 1970s. It'd be like a 1970s comic trying to do something 1940s style. Comics are always going to reflect the times they're produced in, for better or worse. The books are going to reflect our modern real world. I'd just like them to offer some hope and a little idealism for it. What are superheroes for? I suppose we could even say that's the theme of the conflict between Cap and Shellhead: Idealism vs Cynicism. Cap's always an idealist, whereas Tony is more cynical and trying to make the best of a bad situation where he sees no idealistic outcome possilble.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 21, 2007 16:57:13 GMT -5
Good points, all.
I'm not asking for Marvel to produce comics identical to those made in the 1970s, that's an unreachable goal. But certain things I remember from the 1970s that I like - those I want. Chief among them is heroes that weren't cynical and didn't take Tony Stark's "the ends justify the means" approach. I see enough of that in the real world. Once I felt that we should hold politicians not to the same moral standard expected of us, but to a much higher standard because of the power we wield. I have had that bit of idealism ripped from me, and now it appears that my idea that four color heroes be held to a very high moral standard is under fatal attack. The perils of living long enough for cynicism to dominate, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 22, 2007 11:32:55 GMT -5
You forgot about the Bronze Age. The Silver Age ended a couple of decades before the 90s. The Bronze Age started at Marvel in 1967, when Roy Thomas stepped out of Stan Lee's shadow and began really doing things his way, and several artists, like Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, John Buscema, and Barry Smith changed the entire look and feel of comics, along with a social consciousness developing, superhero comics talking about real world issues. The points where the change from the Silver Age style is especially noticeable are Avengers #57 (introducing the Vision) and X-Men #50 (with that beautiful Steranko cover featuring Polaris). Perceval, that's an interesting statement about the Marvel Bronze Age starting in '67 (implying that for Marvel , the SA was over in '67). I don't agree, that seems far too early. Marvel was still flourishing in '67. However, a case could be made that the inevitable waning of the SA began in '67, what with Marvel reducing its panel size starting with the books published in August '67 (so the books looked different, and some artists felt the smaller size interfered with their work); and Jack and Stan's escalating problems- -and Stan's commitments--resulting in some less than exemplary work on Marvel's flagship book, the FF, noticeable from about #80 or #81, in mid-late 1968 (both Stan and Jack seemed to be "phoning it in" well before #102); and the expansion of Marvel titles in mid-1968, diluting the quality of the work. Most comics scholars consider the Silver Age to have ended in '70 (marked by Kirby leaving the FF) or '71. And some scholars say that the Silver Age ended at different times for different books (Spider-Man #121 in 1973) or Cap #176 (1974). The earliest I've ever seen cited was 1969, when comics raised their price to 15 cents (and let me tell you, that hurt...I did not get a commensurate raise in allowance ). So, as with any movement, the end (and beginning) is not distinct or absolute. Anyway, fascinating post, Perceval. I'd like to read more about what's behind your naming 1967 as the start of Marvel's Bronze Age. It's an intriguing theory. Can you point me me to any books or articles or comic historians who have written about that? And those two magnificent covers you reference--what memories they evoke. I'll never forget being shocked by that by that striking Vision cover in August 1968 (actual month it went on sale)...and the effect was repeated a month later, when I came upon that mesmerizing Lorna Dane cover. If you've ever seen the History Channel's feature "Comic Book Superheroes Unmasked," when Steranko is interviewed, there's a poster of that cover in the background. Too bad these these two covers were exceptions rather than the norm for Marvel back then. Balok-- "Rust Age"...priceless! ;D (even if you didn't originate the phrase, this is the first I've heard of it).
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 22, 2007 22:57:11 GMT -5
Well, I go by how the change happened at DC (since those terms are used most referring to DC). It would have been 1970-71 there, where the entire look and feel of the line changed. The books became more continuity driven and with more social issues in content, and the artwork shifted from the Silver Age style to what we would associate with the 70s.
But, Marvel had already made this shift in style. Notice one subtle thing in Avengers #57: Black urban kids. Notice the use of color in the book. The shift from Marvel's Silver Age style was underway. You do notice a difference in the comics produced before and after. I like to use Avengers #57 as the marking point because it's such a landmark issue, the way Showcase #4 was. Of course, Steranko was already doing his groundbreaking work on SHIELD by this point. Of course, the Martian Manhunter had been introduced several months before the Silver Age Flash, so the true beginning of the Silver Age is even questionable.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 23, 2007 12:48:49 GMT -5
Going back to Mighty Avengers 2, why did everybody behave like they´re mentally retarded? Ares is reduced to Conan with brain damage, Carol is insecure as leader (strangely enough the Wasp, one of the best leaders the Avengers ever had, doesn´t become leader, nor demonstrates any inclination to do so...) and asks herself in one of those stupid thought ballons "What would Cap do" (well, that´s original!) and Ultron or whatever that abomination is says it looks like the Wasp because it loves her (WTF??). The Avengers apparently let Girltron go and the Wasp wants to call Hank at the end os the story because "...Ultron is back and is destroying the world". WTF?? How did she knew it was Ultron? Because it says it loves her? This stuff is so bad it hurts to read...
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 23, 2007 14:29:17 GMT -5
Going back to Mighty Avengers 2, why did everybody behave like they´re mentally retarded? Ares is reduced to Conan with brain damage, Carol is insecure as leader (strangely enough the Wasp, one of the best leaders the Avengers ever had, doesn´t become leader, nor demonstrates any inclination to do so...) and asks herself in one of those stupid thought ballons "What would Cap do" (well, that´s original!) and Ultron or whatever that abomination is says it looks like the Wasp because it loves her (WTF??). The Avengers apparently let Girltron go and the Wasp wants to call Hank at the end os the story because "...Ultron is back and is destroying the world". WTF?? How did she knew it was Ultron? Because it says it loves her? This stuff is so bad it hurts to read... Again, go back to some classic 1970s issues for the business with Ultron and Jan. Post-Shooter writers have generally ignored that subplot, since, though Busiek touched on it during his run. Just realized that Perez drew the Shooter and Busiek Ultron stories. Maybe he had a little input? As for Ares, remember Hawkeye during Stan's run and Hercules during Stern's. Ares may be acting retarded, but it's keeping with tradition. Also, can you really describe it as "letting" Ultron go? That would mean they had a choice in the matter. It's not like the willingly let Ultron go back in Avengers #66 or #161, either. Ultron's frequent ability to beat the tar out of the Avengers is part of what makes him/her their arch-nemesis. The best Ultron stories have been the ones where it seems to be unbeatable, where you really wonder how the Avengers can win this.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 23, 2007 15:25:27 GMT -5
also, I don't think they let Ultron go. I'm sure we'll still see them hanging aroung Ultron first thing in issue 3. I mean you'll see them. Not me, but I'll read what you guys get.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 23, 2007 15:29:41 GMT -5
Again, go back to some classic 1970s issues for the business with Ultron and Jan. Post-Shooter writers have generally ignored that subplot, since, though Busiek touched on it during his run. Sorry, but neither in Shooter nor in Busieks run Ultron said (or demonstraded) to be in love with Jan. As for Ares, remember Hawkeye during Stan's run and Hercules during Stern's. Ares may be acting retarded, but it's keeping with tradition. He is acting out of character. Ares was more like a Loki with more muscles. Now he´s a Hercules with less brains... Also, can you really describe it as "letting" Ultron go? That would mean they had a choice in the matter. It's not like the willingly let Ultron go back in Avengers #66 or #161, either. Ultron's frequent ability to beat the tar out of the Avengers is part of what makes him/her their arch-nemesis. The best Ultron stories have been the ones where it seems to be unbeatable, where you really wonder how the Avengers can win this. Yeah, but the feeling at the end of the issue was that Carol more or less ordered the team to reagroup and let it/him/her go, not because she had a plan but because she didn´t have any. Only Jan went after Girltron, just to have weird conversations with her...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 25, 2007 8:53:48 GMT -5
Again, go back to some classic 1970s issues for the business with Ultron and Jan. Post-Shooter writers have generally ignored that subplot, since, though Busiek touched on it during his run. Sorry, but neither in Shooter nor in Busieks run Ultron said (or demonstraded) to be in love with Jan. . I think mayve he is refering to the fact that when Ultron chose Jan as the brain pattern donr for his wife Jocasta that was denoting some sort of attraction. Also Ultron going through that whole psychological thing where the writers are trying to show his Oedipal complex.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 25, 2007 16:45:08 GMT -5
She sounds a lot like Alchema, AKA War Toy, though... Ultron's former "bride", based on the brain patterns of Mockingbird... She, too, made many "humanlike" comments, often humorous...
|
|
HarperDJ
New Avenger
Fan of The Comic
Posts: 7
|
Post by HarperDJ on Apr 26, 2007 7:27:12 GMT -5
Issue #1 was pretty good so I will keep going. Now that issue #2 has knocked me out of my seat I look forward to the next and the next, and...
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Apr 27, 2007 23:11:11 GMT -5
I just read the issue and the other post in this thread. There's actually a number of great things that have arisen that I want to comment on:
1. The issue itself- I think it had great potential but I still found it disappointing. I personally find that there's something artificial about Bendis' dialogue. I like thought bubbles, but I I have found his usage of them annoying because they are being overused. I don't really need a thought bubble to tell me that what someone is thinking is the same as what they are saying for example (Ms. Marvel to Sentry- thought: "How do I say this?" followed by the spoken "How do I say this?") I think what I don't like about Bendis' dialogue is that he has a certain beat or rhythm to his writing. This can work very well in narrative writing, but various characters wouldn't continue with that same rhythm. Granted Shakespeare pulled it off with his iambic pentameter, but Bendis is not Shakespeare. Otherwise, I thought the issue wasn't bad. It wasn't great and I wish more had happened, but I am not even close to giving up on this book like I did NA.
2. The nudity issue- Although I certainly agree that there are many elements in today's comics that would be better if they focused more on story and character than on shocking visuals and I would like to see the books be a little more kid friendly, the nudity didn't really bother me. It was obscured and robotic. I don't get offended by the Silver Surfer's nudity because, again, it's like looking at a Ken doll. I have found it odd that he has successfully attracted several females (Shalla-Bal, Mantis, Alicia) when he so openly expresses his shortcomings, but oh well. What I find interesting about this issue is that many parents (I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with Nutcase) are more troubled by their kids seeing a naked body than acts of violence. Back in the 80s, I worked in a video rental store and I remember more than one occasion whereupon parents would question me about movies such as the "Friday the 13th" series by asking if there was any nudity. When I would say there may be some but there were also acts of graphic violence they plainly state that they weren't worried about that as long as there was no nudity. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather my kids grow up and have sex that grow up and kill someone.
3. The Hank issue- I know that the issue was resurected prior to Bendis and I didn't like to see it rear its ugly head then. However, I don't think it was present in such a way that it has to be continued. Just because Hawkeye and maybe another character or two indicated that they had not moved past Hank's past actions does mean the rest of world has to agree or that if the issue is dropped, some major plot point has been retconned. I agree with the folks that say that Hank has redeemed himself since those days. Several Avengers have had criminal pasts (including Hawkeye.) The Avengers have always moved past that. They are even willing to let Ares join the team. However, Hank hit Jan one time during a time of mental illness and it will never die. I'm not saying that a man hitting his wife, even once, is okay, but is it the one unforgivable crime? The Vision tried to take over the world, She-Hulk went crazy and destroyed a small town, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch left the Avengers and rejoined Magneto, and Moondragon took over people's minds. All this is okay, but Hank slapped Jan. No one can move on. I agree that his hand in creating Clor was much worse because it wasn't something that happened in the heat of a moment, but was premeditated. Ironman's role in that was even worse because he had been preparing for something like that since the Avengers were founded. It's just time to let the abuse thing go and let Hank be a hero again.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 28, 2007 15:58:54 GMT -5
I broke down and bought this issue, and to my surprise, it didn't suck. I think maybe I've caught some sort if enthusiasm virus from Doctor Doom. In part I purchased this book as a bridge to #3, which is previewed intriguingly elsewhere.
There was some action, but it seemed more like brief islands of activity in a sea of not much going on. However, I can give the book a pass on this because the team is missing Tony (their brains) and they clearly didn't know what they were talking about.
I didn't find Girltron all that offensive, although I can see why some parents might - but I think spiderwasp's points in this regard vis a vis sex and violence are well taken.
Carol irritates me because she's portrayed here as lacking the confidence necessary to be a field leader, and that's at odds with what I remember of past portrayals. Likewise, Jan should have been more assertive - she should have made people listen to her and possibly they would have caught on earlier.
Bendis actually made me feel sorry for the Moleman, and he gets points for that.
I may even return for #3 - but I'm going to need to see more action in that issue. One slow issue while they deduce what they're facing is enough. And, they better not have an issue like that for every villain, either - most of them time, an experienced team should know what it faces, and/or should have a set of default tactics based on demonstrated abilities.
5/10
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 28, 2007 16:09:12 GMT -5
Why Balok, that may just be the most positive thing you've ever said about Bendis
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 28, 2007 22:40:52 GMT -5
Certainly on these boards. I liked his work on a book called "Alias" (the adventures of Jessica Jones after her superheroing days were over) - that book had an entirely different tone (and art I found difficult to endure, but I digress). My chief complaint was the loathsome events surrrounding the appearance of Kilgrave (the Purple Man). I can't argue that someone with his powers and no ethics wouldn't act like that, because I've met people who, given that power set, would behave exactly that way. But reading about it left me with the kind of unpleasant aftertaste one gets from using too much lighter fluid on the grill - hard to define, but really unenjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 29, 2007 2:37:31 GMT -5
I liked Alias as well, and The Pulse...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 15:23:45 GMT -5
I know I wasn't supposed to be getting this one any more. I forgot to tell my wife that when she was having to pick up titles for me while I was out of it. So I was a yes and didn't even know it.
I have yet to read #3 though, I'm wayyy behind.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 24, 2007 16:21:23 GMT -5
3 is definitely a step up on 2, Nutty!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 16:32:36 GMT -5
It's really gonna tick me off if I like it and lose that money. Iwas gonna start saving for my sons braces with that money.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 24, 2007 16:40:30 GMT -5
Aaah.
Thank God for the NHS!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 24, 2007 18:20:39 GMT -5
The Queen really makes sure you have good healthcare for when you lose teeth getting knocked through a wall.
|
|