|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 19, 2009 21:08:13 GMT -5
Okay, I'm current with them (Issue 26), and I tell you, Teammates, 'though it's far from a perfect book, it does keep me interested in what's going to happen next. And I don't find myself throwing the book down in disgust and feeling betrayed.
Not liking the art a whole lot. Avengers = Clean Artistic Style. The end.
While this take on Hank is certainly volatile and interesting, it's REALLY hard to resolve this Hank as being the same level-headed, steadfast fellow in Avengers Forever. Man, I'd have trouble even believing they were brothers. Or cousins.
Team doesn't have much cohesion at all. Not sure why they're a "Team". This echos (ominously?) of what the core problem with the Champions was. It IS a neat bunch of inividuals, though. I'd like to see them work out.
An unnecessary, "oops-our-bad!" fight between two superteams?? Really??? Hello, do I have 1966 on the line?
Reed HAS to be a doombot, or another Skrull, or suffering another nervousl breakdown, or a disguised ZombiePlanet creature, or something. This was not Reed Richards. Sorry, Slott.
LOVED Cassie's spit-take! (Oh, spit-takes are the HEIGHT of schtick-based comedy! They never fail!)
Yes, I am loving this take on Jocasta. 'Bout time she was used effectively.
Sending USAgent & Pietro on a mission together is a surprisingly deft move. These are, IMO, two of the least-likable fellows in tights. Not badly written--- just ill-natured. Lordy, they're gonna kill each other. Perhaps Moondragon will show up to help out. Again, it has a lot of potential to be interesting & fun.
Glad to see Hank get one over on Reed-- more or less. 'Bout time there, too.
It's a sad state when "I don't hate it at all" seems like a ringing endorsment-- but ya gotta take what good news there is. . .
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 21, 2009 21:33:53 GMT -5
I'm dropping this book like a bad habit, actually. I barely read it and when I do, I just find it dense and uninteresting. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 22, 2009 0:09:09 GMT -5
My biggest problem is with Slott writing Richards (and previously, Stark) like raging jerks in order to make his plot work. And would Pym really say, "It's on pregnant dog" to Reed? Does that sound anything like Hank Pym?
I want to like this book, I really do. But Slott needs to elevate his game. Making everyone else look bad so Pym looks good is not the way to write this or any other book.
As for the art, why do all the women have 'pretzel syndrome'? And did Ultron actually build Jocasta with an ass big enough you could set a drink down on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jun 22, 2009 1:14:11 GMT -5
did Ultron actually build Jocasta with an ass big enough you could set a drink down on it? Given that most female superheroes have tits big enough to provide shade for a small child, is this really an issue?  RSC |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 22, 2009 6:09:15 GMT -5
My biggest problem is with Slott writing Richards (and previously, Stark) like raging jerks in order to make his plot work. And would Pym really say, "It's on pregnant dog" to Reed? Does that sound anything like Hank Pym? I want to like this book, I really do. But Slott needs to elevate his game. Making everyone else look bad so Pym looks good is not the way to write this or any other book. As for the art, why do all the women have 'pretzel syndrome'? And did Ultron actually build Jocasta with an ass big enough you could set a drink down on it? Nah, Hank (in a normal state) would never say that-- I thought that was an immature cheap-shot on Slott's part. Although. . . . . I could fully picture "Yellowjacket-personality" Hank saying it; and possibly "Divided Into Two Opposing Core Personality Types" Hank saying it, as well. So, maybe this is Slott playing with Hank's relative mental stability? I kinda doubt it-- and boy I hope not-- 'cause if we have to go down that road yet again, I'm gonna feel the need to track Mr. Slott down and pants him in public. . . . (hmm-- speaking of mental health. . . ) And Reed, as far as I'm concerned, has just been lost as a character, anyhow (as I've discussed elsewhere). There's no handle to fit him anymore. The one saving detail in this instance is that his own teammates seemed to be shocked by the way he was treating Hank. If there's more going on with this than meets the eye, that would be a great relief. Boy, the ol' T & A debate. I'm trying to think if there are any- or have been any- major artists that were comfortable drawing attractive, small-breasted, narrow-hipped women? (Women, mind you-- not, like, 14-year-old girls. . .). We've at least achieved recognizable height differences (Jan & Crystal on the petite side, Wanda & Ororo considerably taller than average. . .)-- but beyond that, they all have that same guy-fantasy body. It's almost a nostalgic adherence to the medium's golden-age roots. . . HB |
|
Doctor Bong
West Coast Avenger
Master of Belly Dancing (no, really...)!
Posts: 49
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jun 22, 2009 6:17:49 GMT -5
My biggest problem is with Slott writing Richards (and previously, Stark) like raging jerks in order to make his plot work. And would Pym really say, "It's on pregnant dog" to Reed? Does that sound anything like Hank Pym? I want to like this book, I really do. But Slott needs to elevate his game. Making everyone else look bad so Pym looks good is not the way to write this or any other book. As for the art, why do all the women have 'pretzel syndrome'? And did Ultron actually build Jocasta with an ass big enough you could set a drink down on it? Nah, Hank (in a normal state) would never say that-- I thought that was an immature cheap-shot on Slott's part. Although. . . . . I could fully picture "Yellowjacket-personality" Hank saying it; and possibly "Divided Into Two Opposing Core Personality Types" Hank saying it, as well. So, maybe this is Slott playing with Hank's relative mental stability? I kinda doubt it-- and boy I hope not-- 'cause if we have to go down that road yet again, I'm gonna feel the need to track Mr. Slott down and pants him in public. . . . (hmm-- speaking of mental health. . . ) And Reed, as far as I'm concerned, has just been lost as a character, anyhow (as I've discussed elsewhere). There's no handle to fit him anymore. The one saving detail in this instance is that his own teammates seemed to be shocked by the way he was treating Hank. If there's more going on with this than meets the eye, that would be a great relief. Boy, the ol' T & A debate. I'm trying to think if there are any- or have been any- major artists that were comfortable drawing attractive, small-breasted, narrow-hipped women? (Women, mind you-- not, like, 14-year-old girls. . .). We've at least achieved recognizable height differences (Jan & Crystal on the petite side, Wanda & Ororo considerably taller than average. . .)-- but beyond that, they all have that same guy-fantasy body. It's almost a nostalgic adherence to the medium's golden-age roots. . . HB Yeah, but it's not just women... it is the same with at least 90% of the male heroes as well... |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 22, 2009 8:02:33 GMT -5
And would Pym really say, "It's on pregnant dog" to Reed? Does that sound anything like Hank Pym? Well he could be trying to appeal to the younger generation of readers by using their slang . . . You guys were around for the 90s, right? Exagerated male and female anatomy isn't something new. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 22, 2009 9:30:14 GMT -5
My biggest problem is with Slott writing Richards (and previously, Stark) like raging jerks in order to make his plot work. And would Pym really say, "It's on pregnant dog" to Reed? Does that sound anything like Hank Pym? I want to like this book, I really do. But Slott needs to elevate his game. Making everyone else look bad so Pym looks good is not the way to write this or any other book. As for the art, why do all the women have 'pretzel syndrome'? And did Ultron actually build Jocasta with an ass big enough you could set a drink down on it? I really did think that there was a twist coming up and that Reed was trying to spark Hank to test or motivate him. Some creative people work better when challenged and I thought Reed was doing that to Hank to make him not only tap into that creative genius, but also get one over on "Reed Richards" thus boosting Hank's ego even more and maybe helping restore his confidence. I was surprised there was none of that. Slott is doing a subpar job on the book and the sales are heading down pretty fast. I could also do with less of Stature and this boring teenage version of the Vision... That said, I would sooner boil myself in hot molten lead than see bendis on the book again. And yes Jocasta needs a giant booty. Jennifer Lopez will be CGI'ed with metallic skin to play her in the movie, but there's some things you just can't get rid of with movie magic, so now Jocasta needs to have a tush big enough to star in a rap video. |
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 22, 2009 15:28:50 GMT -5
Regarding how Reed Richards was handled: I consider it a sign of lazy writing when a writer has to bend other characters out of their normal behavior in order to make his main character look better. Even if Reed did not want to give over the gizmo to Pym, surely the Reed I know would have offered to help Pym in another way! But no, he's just the villain of the piece here, for no good reason. Same with Iron Man a few issues before. Everyone seems to detest Pym now and there's no reason for it, other than to make the reader sympathize with Pym. There are other ways to do that, ones which don't abuse years of characterization.
As for the look of the women in the book: I've been reading comics for almost 40 years. I know women are going to be drawn in an overtly sexual manner. But even given that, I feel the art here is over the top. I think the artist must be taking lesson from Frank Cho...but at least Cho can actually draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jun 22, 2009 17:56:13 GMT -5
Well he could be trying to appeal to the younger generation of readers by using their slang . . . You guys were around for the 90s, right? Exagerated male and female anatomy isn't something new. I don't mean to start and argument here, but I have to say that you seem to be a bit of a contrarian with your comments. If you disagree with people's viewpoints, by all means, let us know why, However, what strikes me about this particular post is that you aren't actually disagreeing that this issue is bad, you seem to instead be saying that we should just accept bad comics because that's the way things are. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to buy that. Firstly, the idea that Slott is writing Pym out of character as an attempt to appeal to younger readers. Well, sure, I think that's exactly what he's doing. But just because we understand his reasons for doing it doesn't make it good writing or in character, nor does it excuse it from criticism. Indeed, the fact that he is bending the characters like this to try to suck up to new readers is the main complaint most of us have in the first place. I'd also take issue with the implication (which Slott apparently agrees with) that the characters need to be treated like this in order to appeal to younger readers. It's basically saying that the characters are no longer relevant or interesting, and I'd argue that if this is the case, they should be written out entirely and the writers can replace them with more relevant, interesting characters. If you need to turn Pym into Spencer Pratt to make him interesting, then just don't use Pym. More to the point, however, I think that these characters can and will appeal to new readers simply by being written compellingly. If good, dramatic stories are being presented then you don't need to resort to cheap tricks to get people hooked. I was introduced to Hank Pym in WCA #1. Pym at this point had no powers and was a depressed and disgraced divorcee. As a kid, he had nothing in common with me at all, yet I became a fan of Pym anyway because the stories he was in were interesting and revealled the depth of the character. Issues like WCA #7 made me a Pym fan even though he was hardly the coolest or flashiest character around. Secondly, your comment about art in the 90's also being bad implies that we should accept bad art because it's just the norm. Well, no thanks. I do remember the 1990's and I can tell you that at the time, I and all the other fans I knew thought the art was crap. Let's look at the big supposed fanboy moment of the decade, the creation of Image in 1992. This happened during my senior year of high school, when I was one of those younger readers being targeted by the kewl art. Of the seven artists who went to Image, my feeling at the time was that Jim Lee was awesome, Todd McFarlane was pretty awesome and Whilce Portacio was interesting even though he hardly ever actually published anything. Liefeld was a giant joke, I didn't care for Valentino's work, I hated Erik Larsen and I thought Silverstri had started off promisingly and gotten worse and worse. Even in the 90's, when I was a kid, this "popular" art wasn't actually popular with myself or anybody I knew, and even then we were unhappy with the direction art was going. Funny thing, once these guys were at Image, they all became even more the way they already were. Without editors to force them to conform to artistic standards, they each followed their own developing styles, with the result that the good artists stayed good and the bad ones got worse and worse. Liefeld became even crappier, While became even less reliable, Silvestri became even sloppier and Jim Lee stayed good because he actually had a grasp of fundamentals. The point is that bad art should be complained about, because editorial has a responsibility to make sure that artists draw things that don't look stupid. If the guy doing Mighty Avengers turns in pages that make the women in Avengers look like extras on a Sir Mix-A-Lot video shoot, the editor has every right and responsibility to ask the artist for changes to correct it, and as readers we have the right to expect them to do so. Since the big artists movement in the 1990's, editors seem more and more reluctant to assert their rights, and the result has been the predictable worsening of art in general in terms of perspective and anatomy. Look, if you like the way Slott is writing stuff and you like how the art looks, then great. Tell us why. That's totally cool. But I'm here to tell you that I'm never going to accept the argument that we should just expect and be happy with badly written and badly drawn comics. I've read enough comics to know that characters can be written well, and they can be drawn well, and when they are it's a better and more satisfying result. And when Marvel or DC doesn't produce, then we should complain about it because we know that they can and should do better. [And I should say that I am not actually arguing the specific merits of Mighty #25 since I didn't have a chance to read it. I did look at the new #26 in the store today and I thought the art and writing were both okay. Not great, but not too bad and I thought both had some promise at least. My comments here are general.] |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 22, 2009 21:35:40 GMT -5
Heya Scott--
I'll tell ya, your oratorio, here, about relative distinctions between good & bad art, and editorial courage & responsibility, and the obligation of fans to voice their displeasure is almost "NETWORK"-like in its inspiration! ("I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!!!")
I will potentially poke my nose in on Woodside's behalf, though (no offense, Woodside. . . ), 'cause I assumed his brief comments were being served with a hefty ladle of irony-sauce, and took them as such.
(Mind you, I could be wrong--- and WS you're about to make me look like a dope. . . . )
Oh, it's always dangerous to intervene. . .
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 10, 2009 6:36:27 GMT -5
Having recently picked up most of this titles back-issues from mile-high (w/ discounts, sale, etc-- they came to about $.75 an issue or so. What's that tell us?), and then reading about 15 issues in one sitting (which took, maybe, 75 minutes. What else does that tell us?), what struck me in the face like a cement spatula was that, of all the unfortunate directions Marvel has taken the Avengers (and the MU) in these past three years or so, "SECRET INVASION" may have been the worst. I did not realize that, even as the New Avengers stopped appearing in NEW AVENGERS for many, many months-- the same thing was happening over in MIGHTY. Up until that point, it was still recognizably "Avengers"-y (albeit with the same HUGE issues of fractured, "trendy", character-free dialogue; retconning; and total ignorance of backstories). Plus, I do like Frank Cho a lot (he's a local boy-- that BARC you see him sneaking on to t-shirts and things is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center that our little town is home to.).
BUT-- just as in NA-- "Secret Invasion" hits, and geeze, the book turns into a Nick Fury/Skrull o' the Month title. For months, it seems like.
Aaaaaaaaand everyone loses interest. And the obvious, obvious, OBVIOUS question is- This is supposed to attract new readers (and retain old ones). . . . HOW?
I wouldn't be surprised to see this book cancelled, because even with Slott getting it back sort of on an "Avengers" course, I imagine the sales damage has LONG been done, and now there's not even a solid artist to pull people back in.
I still maintain that this all started 'wayyyyyy back in that Kang arc a few years ago (Busiek's?), where the storyline was so huge that the world was defeated, cities were destroyed, etc, etc-- and yet there were no noticeable effects or consequences afterwards. Many other titles didn't even acknowledge it. There is a point where a story is TOO big. Especially 'cause other writers will only want to top it somehow.
Oh, I can't even write coherently about it-- the whole line has just gone too deeply, complicatedly awry. . .
HB
|
|
!!!