Has there been timeless BMB Avengers story yet?

[freedomfighter]

People can debate whether the criticism of Bendis! is unfair or not until the end of time.
However history tends to lend a bit of perspective.
Most people agree the first few issues of Avengers are fairly standard stuff until the return of Cap being the standout and Avengers 16 where the lineup was shuffled for the first time and the second stringers were brought in. But otherwise, Stan didn't do as well with the title as he did with the FF and Spidey.
Roy Thomas has some good stuff in there, but the Kree/Skrull War has taken on legendary status. And it appears that most writers while on the title have come up with a "knock it out of the ballpark" memorable storyline that stands the test of time, even if it's not beloved (i.e. the the YJ saga in Shooter's second run). Shooter, Michelinie, Shooter again, Stern's mansion under siege is a classic and an instant classic at that.
Byrne, hama, harras etc. ...ehh not my cup of tea and I've pretty much tossed all those issues and haven't read them in years so not fair for me to judge them without material at hand. Some may give galactic storm better raves than I do, which is the only story I've kept from those years.
But Busiek's Ultron storyline was instant greatness for me.
So given these examples, is there anything in Bendis' Avengers catalog that has this sort of impact? He's been on the books for a while now (as long or longer than many of the runs I've described here) and I've yet to remember anything as being a wow moment...

[bobc]

I was wondering the same thing. I often ask myself if Hollywood were to make an Avengers movie, and they certainly hinted at it at the end of Iron Man, what story would they go with? I think they'll have to do the Ultimates because most of the Avengers' members have long, convoluted histories that might be too confusing to the mainstream public. The Ultimates scraps most of the history so that would probably adapt better and the stories were very memorable.

Bendis' stuff? I'm going to be nice.

[ultron69]

I agree that they will go with the Ultimates, which, I am totally unfamiliar with. Wasn't the Ultimate Universe created because of the movies? They wanted a Marvel universe which was more similar to the less complicated movies?

[bobc]

ULTRON!!!!! You must read Mark Millar's Ultimates! There is the Ultimate universe, and there is the comic The Ultimates, which is kinda like an alternate universe Avengers. It is absolutely brilliant. Millar puts a brilliant spin on all the characters but the core is still there.

[redstatecap]

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the objective answer is yes.
Avengers Dissassembled, bad or good, is a watershed event in Avengers history.
Of course, it's one of those watershed events like, oh, Hitler being elected Chancellor of Germany.
AD is self-serving, moronic, and poor writing on Bendis' part -- but regardless of all these things, it has changed the Avengers title irrevocably for the forseeable future.
After AD, there are no significant Bendis stories. It's all irrelevant crap and Ninjas.

RSC

[ultron69]

Ok, bobc, You've sold me. I will check out Ultimates! :-)

[bobc]

Redstate--LOL!!! It was a watershed moment alright--bringing to mind the water swirling around inside a toilet...

Ultron--The Ultimates is very adult and very "today," it's not like the stuff Busiek or Roy Thomas wrote (those writers were fun but Millar is darker and edgier). I just want to make sure you know that before you buy it. Millar writes The Ultimates as though the Avengers were created today. If you buy the paperback and don't like it I'll buy it from you since I loaned my own copy out to a friend and he never returned it.

[humanbelly]

Ahhhhhh. Hmmmmm.
Okay. Well.
I went ahead and started in w/ the first NA TPB tonight (while waiting for daughter's dance class)--- and, I'm almost embarrassed to say, I don't hate it at this point. The artwork is really carrying the day, for one thing (although I think there's too much reliance on large panels and pictures). And a lot of the dialogue is very entertaining (although there's still too much uncharacteristic profanity already, and a tendency for every character to have "slacker" speaking habits). And you know, that first story arc (Breakout at the Raft) could possibly have been a contender for "timelessness". . . . . . IF IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FINISHED!!
Maybe I missed it. Did the conclusion of that HUGE hopeless battle w/ all those escaped villains happen in a different book? Was that the first issue of The Sentinel ("The Sentry", I mean. )? Last page of one issue--- it's hopeless; game over. First issue of the next--- Cap & I.M. havin' bagels, goin' "Boy, that sure was a close one!" Nothing like making your reader feel like he's missed an issue when he hasn't. So I'm guessing, no- no timelessness here just yet.

HB

[woodside]

Coming from someone who enjoys Bendis' run (for the most part), I have to say "Secret Invasion."

Mainly because it was something that he had been building since issue # 1. For better or for worse, it was his baby. Everything that Bendis brought in - from Ninjas to Spider-Woman to Maria Hill - was laid down as the foundation for that story.

Events like "World War Hulk," "Annihilation," and "Civil War" fed into SI organically, helping to create the right mood for the event. Ramifications were felt with many of the other Skrull characters, including Super-Skrull, whatshername from FF, and the two Skrull kids from Runaways and Young Avengers.

The main eight issue limited series may have been a little flat on their own, but when supplemented with story-revealing issues of NA and MA, the weight of the limited series grows. Not all are very good, but there are some fine issues in there.

Now, obviously, there are some problems, but for every flaw, there's a gem. Thor, Iron Man, Cap, and Nick Fury rallying all of the Avengers, the Intiative, and the Hood's cabal is a fantastic scene.

Actually, boo and hiss if you want, nearly all of the Thor scenes are great. His first arrival, his drawing of the troops, his Pym-love . . .

"Disassembled" felt like editorial's way of saying "shake up the Avengers." "House of M" was decent, but slow and unbalanced at times. "Civil War" belonged to Millar. But "Secret Invasion?" This ws Bendis' baby, for better or for worse. Will it stand the test of time? I honestly don't know.

It will always be my eternal hope that this phase of the Marvel Universe is viewed better and more openly 5-10 years from now than it is now.

[humanbelly]

You're certainly giving me cause to do a bit of re-evaluation, Woodside. While I still stand behind earlier-made statements of what I feel BMB's concrete weaknesses are as a writer, I think there may be also a- dare I say it?- generational issue in play here, which casts no ill reflection on you at all. Believe me. There's a large contingent on this list that are in their late 30's to late 40's. Many may have been following these titles for 30 years or more, and brother, we are deeply programmed with the decades-long sanctity of MU continuity, and attention to consistency of character. All writing-quality issues aside, the cardinal sin that has been committed in our eyes (& I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, here), is the wild, careless, and accelerated retconning that's been taking place since, really, "Timeslide". But most egregiously with the advent of Civil War. When you follow stories and characters for years, believing them & enjoying them, and then are told- "Ha! It was all a lie! Those weren't really the characters we told you they were!" or "These characters you respected were actually doing underhanded things the whole time, you just didn't know it!"-- it's just. . . well, it's a betrayal of you as a long-time fan, and it feels INCREDIBLY personal. And I think that's ultimately why the rejection of BMB is so particularly vehement from our quarter. He's dismissing what we liked, and pretty much making us feel foolish for believing it. [And I can't help yet another aside: It IS illegitimate story-telling to make fundamental changes that way. What if we found out in the final Harry Potter book that Hermione was suddenly joining the Death Eaters because she actually had been romantically involved w/ Draco since book 3?? It's just stupid, because there's no precedent in the story to support it. Making plot twists work within the constrains of the existing story is what takes skill and talent]

Now, you being, like, geeze, 20 years younger than a bunch of us (literally, the next generation!), probably gives you an advantage in that you don't have quite the continuity baggage that the rest of us are carrying. Not as much to let go of for these arcs to work for you, and you're able to view them a heck of a lot more objectively. And stylistically they may even be more suited to you-- I imagine you're the lifetime reader they're aiming at hanging onto, and there's probably a feeling that the conventions of 20 years ago are not conventions that will play well today. But you are a solid and important reminder that it is possible for them to work in the minds of other intelligent, thoughtful, informed readers, so if nothing else, it behooves us to be able to back up our criticism w/ something more solid than a blanket "Bendis is Satan", as it were.

And taste is always relative, of course.

So thanks again for being a mature, thoughtful, honest, and respectful voice, Woodside. As you've heard from a few others, it is much appreciated.

HB

[woodside]

HB, you da man! ;D

Jun 6, 2009 17:58:23 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

You're certainly giving me cause to do a bit of re-evaluation, Woodside. While I still stand behind earlier-made statements of what I feel BMB's concrete weaknesses are as a writer, I think there may be also a- dare I say it?- generational issue in play here, which casts no ill reflection on you at all. Believe me. There's a large contingent on this list that are in their late 30's to late 40's.

I've often said that I believe there is a generational issue at hand here! I whole-heartedly agree!

For the record, allow me to give you the nutshell of my comic book reading history, as you are a welcomed new comer in these parts! I'm 26 and I've been reading comics since I was 9. I've been reading and collecting X-Men ever since then and I've been reading Avengers since 1996.

Many may have been following these titles for 30 years or more, and brother, we are deeply programmed with the decades-long sanctity of MU continuity, and attention to consistency of character. All writing-quality issues aside, the cardinal sin that has been committed in our eyes (& I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, here), is the wild, careless, and accelerated retconning that's been taking place since, really, "Timeslide". But most egregiously with the advent of Civil War. When you follow stories and characters for years, believing them & enjoying them, and then are told- "Ha! It was all a lie! Those weren't really the characters we told you they were!" or "These characters you respected were actually doing underhanded things the whole time, you just didn't know it!"-- it's just. . . well, it's a betrayal of you as a long-time fan, and it feels INCREDIBLY personal. And I think that's ultimately why the rejection of BMB is so particularly vehement from our quarter. He's dismissing what we liked, and pretty much making us feel foolish for believing it.

If I may contest this statement (and please take no offense to what I'm about to say):

First and foremost, "Civil War" was (beyond the hero vs hero action) about fighting dirty. It was all about the escalation of actions that continued to grow darker and darker until it resulted in whole-sale destruction . . . until Cap realized that their actions were causing said destruction and threw in the towl.

New Warriors & citizens of Stamford killed LEADS to the Super-Human Registration Act LEADS to Cap's rebellion LEADS to Tony being forced to revamp the Thunderbolts LEADS to Cap bringing in the Punisher.

It's a descend into hell for these characters, until the best solution arrives and things balance out. Cap surrenders, ending the destruction. Tony becomes head of SHIELD to see that the super-human future is safe.

In terms of seeing the emotional ramifications of Tony and Cap's actions, they're handled in small and subtle ways in "Civil War" proper, but esp. in issues of Iron Man and Captain America.

For more on this, I encourage you to gander at my huge "Civil War" review found here: vplexico.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=civilwar&action=display&thread=1532&page=1

Now, retconning.

In Bendis' run, there have been the following retcons:

- The creation of the Illuminati
Logical. It would make sense for these characters to come together and act in the way they did according to larger-than-life threats. In terms of what occured in the "Illuminati" mini-series, most of it makes sense. The Beyonder origin has been left open for interpretation. The fate of the Infinity Gems made sense. The Skrull issues tied into his larger story. Marvel Boy was the only sore thumb.

- Spider-Woman is a Skrull
Never before Bendis' run was she a Skrull

- Mockingbird's return
A major retcon, but one I'm not very familair with

-The Scarlet's Witch's break-down
Avengers Disassembled was a lazy trainwreck

Now, you being, like, geeze, 20 years younger than a bunch of us (literally, the next generation!), probably gives you an advantage in that you don't have quite the continuity baggage that the rest of us are carrying. Not as much to let go of for these arcs to work for you, and you're able to view them a heck of a lot more objectively. And stylistically they may even be more suited to you-- I imagine you're the lifetime reader they're aiming at hanging onto, and there's probably a feeling that the conventions of 20 years ago are not conventions that will play well today.

Trust me, sometimes I struggle with Bendis too. Like I mentioned above, Disassembled was a trainwreck. Sometimes he can really nail characters, other times he can just completely screw them up.

I don't think he hates these characters, but with some (esp. Pym, Wasp, and Hawkeye), he just can't get right. His Thor and Iron Man are decent; his Cap was all right most of the time. Ms. Marvel, Luke Cage, Spider-Man, Spider-Woman, and others he can really get.

But you are a solid and important reminder that it is possible for them to work in the minds of other intelligent, thoughtful, informed readers, so if nothing else, it behooves us to be able to back up our criticism w/ something more solid than a blanket "Bendis is Satan", as it were.

And taste is always relative, of course.

So thanks again for being a mature, thoughtful, honest, and respectful voice, Woodside. As you've heard from a few others, it is much appreciated.

I thank you for the kind words, HB. It's tough being one of the few here that enjoy Marvel comics these days.

Bendis is certainly not as evil as many think. His non-Avengers works are often high-praised. The first 100ish issues of Ultimate Spider, Alias (starring Jessica Jones), and the noir-esque Powers are all very good.

[humanbelly]

Yep, yep, yep-- I made an inaccurate reference, which you caught (spellcheck doesn't solve everything, I suppose. . .). "Civil War" was indeed the result of sequential events, I should have cited "Illuminati" as the retcon that bothers me the most. And that's the one I was thinking of as I went into further detail. While it's possible and even logical that these figures could have formed a secret alliance, there was never any indication that this was happening over the years (and then you can plug my initial comparison back in).

And ultimately, editorial leadership- or perhaps lack of it- is as solidly to blame as any of the writers are. There is a responsibility to say "no" on occasion.

"I want to make it so Tony Stark was mind-controlled by Kang for years."
"I want to create a Superman-level character who has ALWAYS been in the MU-- just no one remembers."
"I want Alycia to really have been a Skrull for the last several years"
"I want SEVERAL important major and supporting characters to really have been Skrulls for an indefinite amount of time"
"I want Loki to always have been a woman."
"I want Pete & MJ to never have been married"
"I want Gwen Stacey to have had Norman Osborn's illegitimate children"
"I want to create a reluctant superhero wife for Luke Cage, who has also always been here, but we've never seen before"
"I want several of our 'benevolent dictator' heroes to have been quietly trying to run the world since about 1972 or so."

These wouldn't all have warranted an automatic "no", but one feels that even their execution hasn't been closely monitored.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but with editorial power, comes editorial responsibility. Which means being more involved than saying, "Sure, whatever you want! Run with it, baby!"

Hey, and my 14 year old son, LOVES the first 3-score issues of Ultimate Spider-man. Bendis is certainly capable of pulling in an audience and doing the job well. Perhaps there's ego involved?

I'm sure other folks are slamming their faces into the keyboard by about this time. . . heh. . . sorry to go on so much, yet again. .

HB

[freedomfighter]

Jun 5, 2009 23:31:28 GMT -5 woodside said:

Coming from someone who enjoys Bendis' run (for the most part), I have to say "Secret Invasion."

Mainly because it was something that he had been building since issue # 1. For better or for worse, it was his baby. Everything that Bendis brought in - from Ninjas to Spider-Woman to Maria Hill - was laid down as the foundation for that story.

Events like "World War Hulk," "Annihilation," and "Civil War" fed into SI organically, helping to create the right mood for the event. Ramifications were felt with many of the other Skrull characters, including Super-Skrull, whatshername from FF, and the two Skrull kids from Runaways and Young Avengers.

The main eight issue limited series may have been a little flat on their own, but when supplemented with story-revealing issues of NA and MA, the weight of the limited series grows. Not all are very good, but there are some fine issues in there.

Now, obviously, there are some problems, but for every flaw, there's a gem. Thor, Iron Man, Cap, and Nick Fury rallying all of the Avengers, the Intiative, and the Hood's cabal is a fantastic scene.

Actually, boo and hiss if you want, nearly all of the Thor scenes are great. His first arrival, his drawing of the troops, his Pym-love . . .

"Disassembled" felt like editorial's way of saying "shake up the Avengers." "House of M" was decent, but slow and unbalanced at times. "Civil War" belonged to Millar. But "Secret Invasion?" This ws Bendis' baby, for better or for worse. Will it stand the test of time? I honestly don't know.

It will always be my eternal hope that this phase of the Marvel Universe is viewed better and more openly 5-10 years from now than it is now.

I would contest it, simply because secret invasion is not an Avengers story. It's a marvel universe crossover. And the main story doesn't even take place in the Avengers books.
I wouldn't consider the first Secret War for example...
part of the problem with Bendis' run in my view is that there's too much crossover in fact. The Avengers seem incapable of handling any crisis on their own. How much fun would "Under Siege" have been if half the MU had shown up to help? The interconnected Marvel Universe is a good and bad thing. Good in that it does make sense in some ways, bad in that it completely diffuses any dramatic suspense i.e. "Uh-oh Dormmammu and the Wrecking Crew showed up. That's okay we've got Thor, Ares, and Dr. Strange to take care of them." Whereas when you know a team like Vision, Hawkeye, Wasp and Quicksilver would have a much harder time.
Plus from a personal sense, I found Secret Invasion to be all over the place, trying to work as a treatise on paranoia, a grand crossover, musings on a sense of identity and not firing on a single cylinder properly. Had the story tried to find a single focus while in the Avengers books and worked in various ideas around it, I might've liked it better. I don't find the fact that Bendis storytelling is not my cup of tea to be a generational thing either. It's a matter of liking a certain type of storytelling. If I prefer John Ford to Jim Jarmusch it doesn't make me too old to appreciate one or the other, it simply means one of them tells a story in a way that I emotionally connect with.
The fact that Bendis killed a character like the Wasp and practically no one felt any sadness over it, tells me he didn't write a good death for the character.
In fact the only memorable scene from SI for this reader was when Reed Richards had to watch his family die and was trying to figure out how to kill the Skrulls. I thought it was an interesting play on how torture really doesn't work and that you get more exploiting what people love than hurting them...
And that was an FF moment as opposed to an Avengers moment...

[spiderwasp]

Jun 7, 2009 12:56:03 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

I don't find the fact that Bendis storytelling is not my cup of tea to be a generational thing either. It's a matter of liking a certain type of storytelling. If I prefer John Ford to Jim Jarmusch it doesn't make me too old to appreciate one or the other, it simply means one of them tells a story in a way that I emotionally connect with.

Thank you. I feel the same way. It irritates me when I say I don't like Bendis and someone implies that it is because I am old. No, it because I don't like his writing. I don't believe I would have liked it when was I was in my 20s either. Besides, it could be argued that more of the younger fans like Bendis than the older fans. From that, one might conclude that Bendis appeals to the younger generation. However, one could also observe that far fewer young people are reading comics than ever before, and therefore conclude that young people, in general, don't like the current style of the books.

[humanbelly]

Oh, I know I'm being a bit of a gadfly devil's-advocate here, but I would submit that many of our preferences when it comes to conventions in story-telling, art, and the like will likely have been cemented in our formative years. Or at least give us a comfort zone out from which we then grow. I would think that it's inevitable that, as these conventions change over time, generational differences in response would occur. It's not really about being older or younger-- it's more about what was really good when you were first "patterning" it, and how what is considered "good" may have changed over time.

This in no way excuses poor story-telling, however. Or sloppy, lazy writing. Or self-indulgence driven by ego. There are universal axioms when it comes to good writing and storytelling, and they've held true pretty much forever. And I think your film analogy is spot-on, in that regard. But there are lots of young adults now who can't sit through a brilliant, slow-moving film like "Vertigo" because a much faster-paced editing style had become the norm during their formative years. Sure, they can develope an appreciation and love for it afterwards-- but it doesn't become their artistic home base.

I'm thinking, if this were a conversation about popular music, we would be in serious danger of sounding like our own parents. . . which is a little scary. "You call that music?" My father insisted that the Beatles couldn't possibly have been as technically proficient at recording in-studio as guys like Benny Goodman and Perry Como.

HB

[humanbelly]

*** However, one could also observe that far fewer young people are reading comics than ever before, and therefore conclude that young people, in general, don't like the current style of the books. [/quote]***

Whoops-- forgot to say, Spiderwasp, that I don't disagree with this statement, either. I can't see how this strategy is going to make the audience larger. I would be VERY reluctant to hand these books over to anyone younger than 12. And I can't see why they'd want to buy it. There seems to be more driving away going on than any healthy inviting-in.

HB

[woodside]

Jun 7, 2009 14:12:24 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

I would be VERY reluctant to hand these books over to anyone younger than 12. And I can't see why they'd want to buy it. There seems to be more driving away going on than any healthy inviting-in.

I agree and disagree.

I would not give today's mainstream books to anyone under the age of 12. At least, not the majority of them. But I've been giving copies of "Essential Spider-Man" to my nephew since he was 8 and he has loved them. Silver Age comics were written for an all-ages audience, while comics since about the early 90s (arguably) have been written for a more mature audience.

A few weeks ago, my nephew was over, and I let him read "Civil War." He loved it. So, I don't necessary see your whole "I can't see why they would want to buy it." Esp. now, with all the Marvel movies.


And concerning retcons . . . if we're judging them for Bendis, then shouldn't all other writers be looked upon with the same kind of scrunity? Including Busiek, whose "Avengers Forever" had entire issues dedicated towards retcons?

In terms of "lack of editorial leadership," I firmly disagree. In this day and age, the Marvel Universe is more unified than ever. It is an age of events and themes and on-going story arcs, but with all these titles following the same direction? I would not say that's a sign of editorial leadership.

[freedomfighter]

Jun 7, 2009 14:07:10 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

Oh, I know I'm being a bit of a gadfly devil's-advocate here, but I would submit that many of our preferences when it comes to conventions in story-telling, art, and the like will likely have been cemented in our formative years. Or at least give us a comfort zone out from which we then grow. I would think that it's inevitable that, as these conventions change over time, generational differences in response would occur. It's not really about being older or younger-- it's more about what was really good when you were first "patterning" it, and how what is considered "good" may have changed over time.

This in no way excuses poor story-telling, however. Or sloppy, lazy writing. Or self-indulgence driven by ego. There are universal axioms when it comes to good writing and storytelling, and they've held true pretty much forever. And I think your film analogy is spot-on, in that regard. But there are lots of young adults now who can't sit through a brilliant, slow-moving film like "Vertigo" because a much faster-paced editing style had become the norm during their formative years. Sure, they can develope an appreciation and love for it afterwards-- but it doesn't become their artistic home base.

I'm thinking, if this were a conversation about popular music, we would be in serious danger of sounding like our own parents. . . which is a little scary. "You call that music?" My father insisted that the Beatles couldn't possibly have been as technically proficient at recording in-studio as guys like Benny Goodman and Perry Como.

HB

See, I love current music. I teach group fitness and constantly listen to new music and find dozens of new acts I love. I don't like some new music, but overall think much of the new stuff is great. And I find I can't put on a lot of older music because it's really formulaic and doesn't push the boundaries at all.
I also find overall that movies from the 70s are among the best because its considered the last great moviemaking era. Find comics from different companies at different times to be good. Marvel from mid eighties to mid nineties among the best, then Marvel from midnineties to current to be among the worst with few exceptions.
Tastes are scattered across time genres for me in film TV and music (TV especially is really great, the storytelling has improved by leaps and bounds). I don't know why I should be concerned that Marvel isn't meeting my expectations. Should I decide that I'm not being a good enough reader? That seems fairly self flagellating...

[starfoxxx]

Well, at thirty-five, I may represent the "middle-ground" of the young vs. old argument.....

and I have to say, I'm loving lots of stuff the "new" writers are creating these days, esp. Van Lente's MARVEL ZOMBIES series, Geoff John's LEGION of 3 WORLDS, etc. And no writer is absolute for me, as I like MOST of Millar's current stuff, but 1985 was a serious waste of money, and I'm loving Loeb's fun take on the new HULK series, but I HATED what he did in the ULTIMATE universe....

but Bendis just has no idea what he's doing.

as I've said many times before, go screw up Batman, or Ultimate Spider-man, or Superman, Wonder Woman, or Moon Knight, whatever.....

just don't mess with the Avengers.