|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Dec 26, 2011 5:10:01 GMT -5
With the announcement of Brian Michael Bendis' departure from the 3 Avengers titles he will be writing, then with a new writer or new writers coming in it may be an opportunity for some new Avengers to be brought into the fold.
Assuming 3 separate teams (Avengers, New Avengers, and a team in the upcoming Avengers Assemble), if you could add 3 brand new, never-been-an-Avenger-before members between the teams who would you choose?
For me I would love to see something like:
Battlestar (Lemar Hoskins): 25 years of Marvel history, never quite the big time, and potentially a great character with the correct writer - solid ingredients in my book for an Avenger. I could see him in a traditional core Avengers line-up.
Songbird (Melissa Gold): I would love to see her become an Avenger 'officially', in this timeline; I think she is a proven character now in her Songbird persona.
Goliath/Black Goliath (Tom Foster): maybe post-the Revengers storyline he could be a good candidate for the New Avengers, giving a (moderately) 'newer' character a chance to shine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Dec 26, 2011 14:52:43 GMT -5
I agree when it comes to Songbird.
I'd like for Jack Frost to be rescued from the belly of the Ice Worm and to join the Avengers (possibly together with the original Human Torch... ).
And Polaris as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp2 on Dec 26, 2011 16:01:40 GMT -5
Okay, I am going to play by the rules and answer the question but I want to preface it by saying that I really don't want to see any new Avengers for awhile. One of the current problems is that practically everyone has become an Avenger and that takes away from it being that special. I'd like for the writers to use a combination of tried and true team members and some of the ones who have been Avengers but maybe didn't get much attention such as Hell-cat, Arachne (Julia Carpenter), or Ant-man (Scott Lang, if he stays alive after Children's Crusade). That said, if there are going to be new picks, here's mine:
Human Torch - He's the only FF member who is not an Avenger. I wouldn't really care to see him have a long run with the team, but enough of one to establish him as a member.
Northstar - This character, when written well, is very interesting. We've seen him interact with Alpha Flight and the X-Men but I wouldn't mind seeing how he'd do as an Avenger.
Impossible Man - Okay, I know it's out there but I love the little guy and boy wouldn't that lighten things up and bring a little humor back to the Avengers? You may begin the rebutals now.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 27, 2011 0:48:17 GMT -5
Songbird, definitely. She's destined to join the Avengers, as per Avengers Forever, so let's put her in there!
I'd also say Captain Marvel (Genis). He's been on the sidelines for a few years and the team could use a cosmic member to help give them perspective. Also, Avengers Forever! It's destiny!
Finally, I think Cannonball from the X-Men would make an excellent addition. He's been a character in constant development for years, rising from New Mutant, to leader of X-Force, to X-Man, to (basically) Cyclops' # 2 guy. I'd love to see him break out of the X-Verse and jump in with the Avengers!
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Dec 27, 2011 9:06:25 GMT -5
Yep, I'm on board w/ Songbird, too. Absolutely my first choice. Boy, Melissa's captured all of our hearts, hasn't she? I've always wanted to see a more male/female balance in the team, and she still has that tradtional Avengers dynamic of taking a character whose first steps were on the wrong side of the law (Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Swordsman, Vision, etc) and putting them in an environment where their innate heroism can flourish.
And I also like the idea getting a non-Wolverine-based X-Man/Force/Factor/Caliber/etc mutant on the team. Sam Guthrie's crossed my mind before-- but I was wondering, is Nightcrawler alive or dead these days? Honestly, I always thought his generally bright, fun, swashbuckling nature was sort of an ill fit for the perennially brooding, angst-ridden X-groups-- and that he'd be a world of fun in a group like the Avengers.
And then, who do we have available in the stranded-alien pool these days? Geeze, surely there are some leftover Skrulls still trying to lay low? And surely there was a subversive faction that would have been trying to thwart their own invasion?
Or, wow-- here's the deep Hulk history working it's magic-- The Missing Link ("Abe") from Hulk 179, I think. Probably still been working in the coal mines for the last 30 years or so. Endearing, sympathetic powerhouse who has long-term radiation-emitting problems Likely to show up on the mansion doorstep, delivered by the folks that love him, but aren't able to handle his special needs and provide a safe environment for him.
There really are so very many characters out there that creating new ones almost seems like the lazy way to go. Heck, I liked seeing Killraven pop up before I stopped reading a few months ago.
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp2 on Dec 27, 2011 10:19:27 GMT -5
Although I didn't say it, I too like the idea of Songbird. I'm even okay with her based on my "No new members right now" philosophy because she has already been introduced as an Avenger in "Avengers Forever" so she would be both new and not new. Credit for introducing her as an Avenger would still go, for me, to Busiek rather than to the writer that brings her into current continuity. That writer would be doing something even better than introducing a new member, they would be utilizing previously established Avengers continuity. They would score a couple of points with me right of the bat.
|
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Dec 28, 2011 11:18:27 GMT -5
Songbird, definitely. She's destined to join the Avengers, as per Avengers Forever, so let's put her in there! I'd also say Captain Marvel (Genis). He's been on the sidelines for a few years and the team could use a cosmic member to help give them perspective. Also, Avengers Forever! It's destiny! Finally, I think Cannonball from the X-Men would make an excellent addition. He's been a character in constant development for years, rising from New Mutant, to leader of X-Force, to X-Man, to (basically) Cyclops' # 2 guy. I'd love to see him break out of the X-Verse and jump in with the Avengers! Without changing my own choices, I have to say Cannonball is inspired. While it is probably too late for Cyclops (too much on his shoulders i guess with the X-Men), both Cyclops and Cannonball are characters who I think could be used positively outside of their natural milieu. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Dec 28, 2011 23:04:19 GMT -5
One of the current problems is that practically everyone has become an Avenger and that takes away from it being that special. I agree. This reminds me that one of the first issues I read upon returning to comics was Avengers #502. I was shocked at the sheer number of past & present Avengers shown, as depicted in the David Finch panel here. And look, even Johnny Storm makes an appearance  (even though as SW2 mentioned, ol' Johnny was never an Avenger. Well, I guess he didn't want to get left behind when Reed, Sue and Ben all answered Cap's call to arms. Or maybe he was just hoping to bump into Crystal).  |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Dec 28, 2011 23:25:43 GMT -5
Okay, now that I got that out of my system, I can settle down to tackle the matter at hand. Cool thread btw, pulpcitizen. Yay! Another Polaris fan. I'm with you, Bong--I'd love to see her on the Avengers. I guess I'd include Havok as well--these two need to spend some time outside of the X milieu for a while. (Yes, I know they'll be back in X-Factor any day now, but I can dream, can't I?) And for my third pick, another personal favorite, how about Johnny Blaze, just for--er--the hell of it. I know he's not a typical team player type of guy, and had problems when he was on the Champions...but I like the character, plain and simple. I'm not much of an Ultimate fan, but I'm even tempted to get a hold of those Ultimate Avengers issues in which Ultimate GR appears. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp2 on Dec 29, 2011 9:11:00 GMT -5
Sharkar, funny you should pull up that particular panel. It was that very panel that first clued me in that Bendis was going to be a problem. There was even a reference made by the Black Panther "We were all Avengers once upon a time," and yet there was Johnny Storm, Nick Fury, Daredevil, and Spiderwoman. None of them had been Avengers at that time. DD had been offered membership when Natasha joined but he declined. The others had not even come close even though they had all appeared briefly in Avengers books. Until then, I knew I wasn't crazy about the Disassmembed storyline but it was right then that I remember thinking "This guy has either not bothered to follow Avengers history or just does't give a crap about it. He's just saying what ever pops into his mind and figuring that, as long as he says it, it's reality." It was all downhill from that point on. Sorry, I don't mean to turn this thread into another Bendis bashing opportunity but I was just really struck by the fact that you pulled out that particular panel. |
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Dec 29, 2011 10:09:53 GMT -5
Could we save any more general Bendis bashing for the various other threads?  |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 29, 2011 19:05:22 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman."
|
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Dec 30, 2011 6:55:09 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman." Kind of like when many slaves are all shouting "I am Spartacus!" in the movie; it is not literal, but more a show of strength in solidarity. As to the idea of too many characters getting Avengers membership (mentioned in an earlier post or two), and therefore maybe some being less than stellar heroes, well that ship has sailed hasn't it, long since? 5 new members within 2 years of launch of the original title/volume. The inclusion of characters such as Swordsman, Mantis (over-rated in my humble opinion, sorry, but that is how I feel), Two Gun Kid (really, Marvel?), Starfox (I love the character, but he was no Captain Marvel!), Silverclaw (the weakest note of Busiek's run?), Captain Britain/Lionheart. Now that is a highly subjective list of Avengers who maybe should not have been, and I guess we each have our own, but the point is that the Avengers has always seen new members come and go, it is part of the fabric of the Avengers tapestry since the early years, is it not? |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 30, 2011 10:19:17 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman." Kind of like when many slaves are all shouting "I am Spartacus!" in the movie; it is not literal, but more a show of strength in solidarity. As to the idea of too many characters getting Avengers membership (mentioned in an earlier post or two), and therefore maybe some being less than stellar heroes, well that ship has sailed hasn't it, long since? 5 new members within 2 years of launch of the original title/volume. The inclusion of characters such as Swordsman, Mantis (over-rated in my humble opinion, sorry, but that is how I feel), Two Gun Kid (really, Marvel?), Starfox (I love the character, but he was no Captain Marvel!), Silverclaw (the weakest note of Busiek's run?), Captain Britain/Lionheart. Now that is a highly subjective list of Avengers who maybe should not have been, and I guess we each have our own, but the point is that the Avengers has always seen new members come and go, it is part of the fabric of the Avengers tapestry since the early years, is it not? If we're not going to bash Bendis' contributions then we should probably not go on about the weaker parts of other writer's runs either. As for Avengers, there has been a great history of legacy characters- i.e. characters who relate to another. As you point out Starfox is part of Mar-Vell's history and also ties in Thanos as a threat. Swordsman is part of Hawkeye's and by association, Mantis is part of that legacy. Hercules was part of Thor's, and the Black Knight was a legacy from their villains roster. What I enjoyed about previous Avenger teams is that it brought together lesser knowns in with some of Marvel's bigger names. Bringing in Spider Man, Wolverine, Dr. Strange, et al. does nothing to expand the scope of the MU and the Avengers, in fact, it makes it smaller. Instead of the someone like the Lion God who was created for the backstory of Swordsman and Mantis, we get Norman Osborn for ten issues because he's a villain that fits Bendis' plans. And even when Bendis does include lesser knowns, to my knowledge he doesn't really do much with them. That's not a complaint- I genuinely would like to know what major storyline revolved around Echo or Jewel. The one character he did cover in detail was the Sentry and that felt like navel gazing because it just rehashed what had already been established about his dual nature. Plus it was just prelude to his demise which felt predestined as no one could figure out how do you handle a character who sounds more powerful than Galactus with the Cosmic Cube... Anyway, the only characters I would like to see are folks who bring in more of those outer elements- Nova brings in the whole universe he's been protecting, and powerhouse villains like the Sphinx, someone like Modred would bring in the Wundagore universe, Vance Astro has the history with the Guardians and would bring in the Badoon and Korvac as well as a possible interesting paradox having both he and Justice together (how hard would it be to see your younger and future selves one of whom bright and sunny, the other hardened by a lifetime of genocide and destruction in the future?). I like to see the Avengers used as a gateway to the whole tapestry of the MU and not just the bigger parts... |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 30, 2011 22:58:01 GMT -5
Excellent post, freedomfighter, and you've been duly exalted.
It is amazing to me how little I know of the Marvel Universe now after seven years of saving my pennies for hardcovers and trade paperbacks (of older material). Reading many of the posts in this thread just leaves me scratching my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 31, 2011 11:42:52 GMT -5
Excellent post, freedomfighter, and you've been duly exalted. It is amazing to me how little I know of the Marvel Universe now after seven years of saving my pennies for hardcovers and trade paperbacks (of older material). Reading many of the posts in this thread just leaves me scratching my head. Coming from you dlw, that's high praise. I've read your blog and it's always a fun romp through some classic comics. Also a minor quibble, but I'm fairly sure that Two Gun Kid and some of the other folks mentioned were honorary Avengers or Avengers in training and were never awarded full status. Several characters were just there to flesh out some storylines (I'm thinking that Hellcat and Moondragon never went past their probationary periods too, which always surprised me...) I'm away for a few days, really enjoying Richmond Virginia, so I don't have my full library available to check these things out. Have a happy New Year folks! |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 1, 2012 0:04:52 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman." It seems like such a long time ago. . . But I do seem to remember taking it as an indirect reference to the "We are all Americans today" sentiment that many other nations extended to the US on/after 9/11. Something like, "In the Avengers darkest hour, ALL superheroes are Avengers"-- but that may have been a stretch on my part. . . or just a coincidence. That association left me a bit sour from the get-go, as it seemed to be capitalizing on an real-world sentiments in an inappropriate fashion. But I could have been reading 'waaaaaay too much into it. Given all of that--ALL of everyone knows ALL of everyone else in this universe, and the idea of an "Avengers Business Only" Crisis is just absurd. Of COURSE other folks are going to lend whatever help they can. and not worry about flashing an Avengers ID. Even as a kid I found the inevitable, "this is an X-Men/Avengers/Fantastic Four matter. . . thanks for the offer, but we'll handle it" to be an unsupportable contrivance. Just drove me crazy. ;D HB |
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 1, 2012 13:19:19 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman." It seems like such a long time ago. . . But I do seem to remember taking it as an indirect reference to the "We are all Americans today" sentiment that many other nations extended to the US on/after 9/11. Something like, "In the Avengers darkest hour, ALL superheroes are Avengers"-- but that may have been a stretch on my part. . . or just a coincidence. That association left me a bit sour from the get-go, as it seemed to be capitalizing on an real-world sentiments in an inappropriate fashion. But I could have been reading 'waaaaaay too much into it. Given all of that--ALL of everyone knows ALL of everyone else in this universe, and the idea of an "Avengers Business Only" Crisis is just absurd. Of COURSE other folks are going to lend whatever help they can. and not worry about flashing an Avengers ID. Even as a kid I found the inevitable, "this is an X-Men/Avengers/Fantastic Four matter. . . thanks for the offer, but we'll handle it" to be an unsupportable contrivance. Just drove me crazy. ;D HB While I can see the parallels you speak about, i guess the only person who can answer for that is BMB. As to you your second point, about territoriality in the MU - hear hear; I couldn't agree more (with allowance of caveats of course, which would always be natural - that each core team has their area of speciality/focus which kind of precludes others at times). But in general terms? yes, I have to agree. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 1, 2012 21:50:40 GMT -5
It seems like such a long time ago. . . But I do seem to remember taking it as an indirect reference to the "We are all Americans today" sentiment that many other nations extended to the US on/after 9/11. Something like, "In the Avengers darkest hour, ALL superheroes are Avengers"-- but that may have been a stretch on my part. . . or just a coincidence. That association left me a bit sour from the get-go, as it seemed to be capitalizing on an real-world sentiments in an inappropriate fashion. But I could have been reading 'waaaaaay too much into it. Given all of that--ALL of everyone knows ALL of everyone else in this universe, and the idea of an "Avengers Business Only" Crisis is just absurd. Of COURSE other folks are going to lend whatever help they can. and not worry about flashing an Avengers ID. Even as a kid I found the inevitable, "this is an X-Men/Avengers/Fantastic Four matter. . . thanks for the offer, but we'll handle it" to be an unsupportable contrivance. Just drove me crazy. ;D HB While I can see the parallels you speak about, i guess the only person who can answer for that is BMB. As to you your second point, about territoriality in the MU - hear hear; I couldn't agree more (with allowance of caveats of course, which would always be natural - that each core team has their area of speciality/focus which kind of precludes others at times). But in general terms? yes, I have to agree. Eh, it happens in the real world all the time. Cops/federal agencies from different districts will take over if they have jurisdiction- firefighters and police will often take charge if a situation is more within their expertise. Personally it would make sense if you were facing Ultron and other super folks (who had no clue how powerful he was) were acting like he was a run of the mill robot, they'd be in danger and more of a hindrance than a help. The Avengers run drills on how to fight Ultron and it would make sense that they could do a better job than just letting Ben Grimm for example, jump in the middle like a bull in a China shop. I hate Avengers Annual #10 where Rogue takes out several Avengers in something like ten seconds, but it illustrates an example of where if it's a situation where you know a foe and the other group does not- it sometimes does make sense to be territorial. And it may be contrived, but it is far more preferable to the alternative where fifty heroes pop up (given that NYC is home to probably a hundred heroes, it's not really unlikely...) and effectively overwhelm any threat with such superior numbers that there's no real suspense or drama... |
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 2, 2012 8:42:52 GMT -5
While I can see the parallels you speak about, i guess the only person who can answer for that is BMB. As to you your second point, about territoriality in the MU - hear hear; I couldn't agree more (with allowance of caveats of course, which would always be natural - that each core team has their area of speciality/focus which kind of precludes others at times). But in general terms? yes, I have to agree. Eh, it happens in the real world all the time. Cops/federal agencies from different districts will take over if they have jurisdiction- firefighters and police will often take charge if a situation is more within their expertise. Except that those organisations may well still co-operate, simply with one 'taking lead'. In dramatic sense, yes, Each book should highlight its own stars. But one wonders how many Marvel incidents may have been lessened with some more heroes turning up. But then they ARE busy with the seemingly 3-4 monthly (Marvel time) crises and sundry 'events'! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 2, 2012 9:13:21 GMT -5
Eh, it happens in the real world all the time. Cops/federal agencies from different districts will take over if they have jurisdiction- firefighters and police will often take charge if a situation is more within their expertise. Except that those organisations may well still co-operate, simply with one 'taking lead'. In dramatic sense, yes, Each book should highlight its own stars. But one wonders how many Marvel incidents may have been lessened with some more heroes turning up. But then they ARE busy with the seemingly 3-4 monthly (Marvel time) crises and sundry 'events'! ;D Federal and State criminal investigations rarely work "together" in physical action. One will take lead and they will share information of certain cases, but they likely wouldn't bust down doors together, for example. Also if SWAT is called in, regular police are pulled back because the procedures are so different. It honestly makes sense to imagine it would work the same with superheroes- some powers wouldn't work well together or would cede a tactical advantage. For example- heat may lessen the intensity of magnetic fields and their effects on metals, so you might not want Polaris and Human Torch fighting together. But it would be hard to coordinate that sort of thing in the heat of battle. If I'm used to working with Thor, Iron Man, Cap, the Vision, et al. and I know exactly what they can do, I don't really think it would matter much if Cloak and Dagger or Agents of Atlas want to show up and offer a hand...they might just get in the way of the most experienced and powerful heroes who might wrap something up pretty easily. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 2, 2012 11:59:54 GMT -5
Except that super-hero teams are not direct analogues to law-enforcement organisations; in ways being (mainly) non-government organisations, perhaps a better analogy is organisations that pitch in during disasters, like MSF, Red Cross, et al, but with super-duper powers.
Anyhoo, whether it it stretches credibility for some, or not for others, is part of the magic of comics isn't it? The super-hero genre takes everything, mashes it up, maybe parking logic to one side and then just rolls on.
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 2, 2012 18:19:05 GMT -5
Except that super-hero teams are not direct analogues to law-enforcement organisations; in ways being (mainly) non-government organisations, perhaps a better analogy is organisations that pitch in during disasters, like MSF, Red Cross, et al, but with super-duper powers. Anyhoo, whether it it stretches credibility for some, or not for others, is part of the magic of comics isn't it? The super-hero genre takes everything, mashes it up, maybe parking logic to one side and then just rolls on. I just think it's a matter of perspective; I see superheroes as having to be reactive i.e. "Zemo has a chronal bomb over Manhattan! Stop him before New York gets blown back to the Stone Age!!" To me, that's not like pitching in during disasters, that's being the first line of defense against extraordinary threats. I apply a bizarre logic to the situation, but logic nonetheless. I'm accepting that there are superheroes and villains, but then I need some other rules and regs so that things don't get out of hand. Like the end of the first Superman movie where he reverses time by simply making the world rotate backwards. I can accept Superman flying so fast he breaks the time barrier, I can't accept that time on Earth works like a VCR in rewind. Besides if you can just reverse time every time something goes belly up it kind of defeats the dramatic tension. So for me, there has to be some internal logic and some internal breakers that set boundaries. Funny thing, I also just re-read Avengers #4 by Busiek and Perez where they address the fifty heroes against one villain problem. Fun issue... |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 8, 2012 6:07:18 GMT -5
Except that super-hero teams are not direct analogues to law-enforcement organisations; in ways being (mainly) non-government organisations, perhaps a better analogy is organisations that pitch in during disasters, like MSF, Red Cross, et al, but with super-duper powers. Anyhoo, whether it it stretches credibility for some, or not for others, is part of the magic of comics isn't it? The super-hero genre takes everything, mashes it up, maybe parking logic to one side and then just rolls on. I just think it's a matter of perspective; I see superheroes as having to be reactive i.e. "Zemo has a chronal bomb over Manhattan! Stop him before New York gets blown back to the Stone Age!!" To me, that's not like pitching in during disasters, that's being the first line of defense against extraordinary threats. I apply a bizarre logic to the situation, but logic nonetheless. I'm accepting that there are superheroes and villains, but then I need some other rules and regs so that things don't get out of hand. Like the end of the first Superman movie where he reverses time by simply making the world rotate backwards. I can accept Superman flying so fast he breaks the time barrier, I can't accept that time on Earth works like a VCR in rewind. Besides if you can just reverse time every time something goes belly up it kind of defeats the dramatic tension. So for me, there has to be some internal logic and some internal breakers that set boundaries. Funny thing, I also just re-read Avengers #4 by Busiek and Perez where they address the fifty heroes against one villain problem. Fun issue... This is an interesting discussion, as it highlights what has to have been a decades-old hurdle for Team-Book writers who have been striving for a higher degree of realism, and who want to make their teams seem more relevant in a societally "realistic" setting. It does seem like there have been several attempts at defining the Team (or at least organizing it) using a real-world model of some sort. In the earliest incarnations, it came across pretty much as a service-focused club, as it were-- like the Lions Club or the Rotaries, say. But with super-powers and special gov't status when necessary. It's seemed like a loose branch of the gov't or military at times. Sometimes there's been a sports-franchise aura, with baseball caps & the ever-present focus on team identity. At one point there was a distinct big-time corpororate template introduced (where Jarvis was running the compound w/ a huge staff)-- but it was discarded rather quickly. All noble attempts, IMO, and each with a claim to being a legitimate model-- but honestly, my gut feeling is that an Avengers-like team of superheroes simply could not exist in our society. Too powerful. Too uncontrollable. Not enough accountability when things go awry. If you took away the superpowers and just made them a group of capable civilians with extraordinary weapons, banding together for the common good, etc, the government and the military would clamp down on them in a heartbeat, yes? Complaints of vigilante-ism and being "above the law" would abound. . . and loudly so. And I do think rightly so (although I hate being such a spoilsport). Which is kind of why there's not exactly a true societal model to base them on. 'Cause they kind of ARE like the Red Cross, and like the police, and like a special forces military unit, and like a sports franchise, and like a private company, etc, etc.-- Just off the top of my head, this morn. . . HB |
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 8, 2012 6:38:57 GMT -5
Excellent summation and overview HB. I think you are right to say they are a little bit of everything and therefore necessitate some specific suspension of disbelief to accept as workable. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 9, 2012 2:24:22 GMT -5
I just think it's a matter of perspective; I see superheroes as having to be reactive i.e. "Zemo has a chronal bomb over Manhattan! Stop him before New York gets blown back to the Stone Age!!" To me, that's not like pitching in during disasters, that's being the first line of defense against extraordinary threats. I apply a bizarre logic to the situation, but logic nonetheless. I'm accepting that there are superheroes and villains, but then I need some other rules and regs so that things don't get out of hand. Like the end of the first Superman movie where he reverses time by simply making the world rotate backwards. I can accept Superman flying so fast he breaks the time barrier, I can't accept that time on Earth works like a VCR in rewind. Besides if you can just reverse time every time something goes belly up it kind of defeats the dramatic tension. So for me, there has to be some internal logic and some internal breakers that set boundaries. Funny thing, I also just re-read Avengers #4 by Busiek and Perez where they address the fifty heroes against one villain problem. Fun issue... This is an interesting discussion, as it highlights what has to have been a decades-old hurdle for Team-Book writers who have been striving for a higher degree of realism, and who want to make their teams seem more relevant in a societally "realistic" setting. It does seem like there have been several attempts at defining the Team (or at least organizing it) using a real-world model of some sort. In the earliest incarnations, it came across pretty much as a service-focused club, as it were-- like the Lions Club or the Rotaries, say. But with super-powers and special gov't status when necessary. It's seemed like a loose branch of the gov't or military at times. Sometimes there's been a sports-franchise aura, with baseball caps & the ever-present focus on team identity. At one point there was a distinct big-time corpororate template introduced (where Jarvis was running the compound w/ a huge staff)-- but it was discarded rather quickly. All noble attempts, IMO, and each with a claim to being a legitimate model-- but honestly, my gut feeling is that an Avengers-like team of superheroes simply could not exist in our society. Too powerful. Too uncontrollable. Not enough accountability when things go awry. If you took away the superpowers and just made them a group of capable civilians with extraordinary weapons, banding together for the common good, etc, the government and the military would clamp down on them in a heartbeat, yes? Complaints of vigilante-ism and being "above the law" would abound. . . and loudly so. And I do think rightly so (although I hate being such a spoilsport). Which is kind of why there's not exactly a true societal model to base them on. 'Cause they kind of ARE like the Red Cross, and like the police, and like a special forces military unit, and like a sports franchise, and like a private company, etc, etc.-- Just off the top of my head, this morn. . . HB I've never seen the point of ultra realism when you're dealing with Norse gods, men who wear battle armor that would take the same amount of power that would be needed to light up a small city, mutant witches, and advanced robots who reasonably duplicate human movement and emotion while possessing enough power to destroy a mountain range. It just seems pointless. The only thing you can do IMO, is create situations that make the unrealistic less important. Sure Thor has superpowers, but he has an overbearing father who doesn't like his girlfriend and his ungainly step brother is jealous of him. The heroic battles expose part of that personality but so do these more down to earth conflicts. That's not just in comics, BTW; that's pretty much any fiction. Twilight, Star Wars, Back to the Future any scifi or fantasy pretty much throws "what would happen if this was real" out the window. Because real would likely be mundane and the reflect the most banal and boring answer. Yes, those with powers would be killed or they'd hide or be registered by the government or experimented on or used as some sort of emergency force. And every one of these has been used as some sort of storyline or basis for a comic, yet they almost always become some sort of heroic storyline that goes right into the ridiculous and impossible. Why? Because I suspect even if you like 'em with feet of clay, people still like heroes and they want said hero to overcome a worthy foe, not sit around discussing super hero registration. In any case this is all navel gazing anyway; we'd like to say we know what people would likely do if there real super heroes, but you can't possibly know, unless it actually happens which is pretty bloody unlikely. However, heroic fiction has existed and thrived for so long that there's probably a reason. And I believe that people don't mind throwing out reality if they're entertained. And that's part of why the superhero for the most part must always operate from a position of overcoming a greater foe or challenge. I was going to write more but truthfully after reading the second part of the Wonder Man storyline in the Avengers Annual, I don't even have it in me anymore... |
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jan 9, 2012 13:29:19 GMT -5
I agree, Freedomfighter! After all, we're reading comics so: 1) they're read for entertainment purposes, and 2) there must always be a suspension of disbelieve, after all, the premise of most of these superpowers is quite impossible, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 9, 2012 20:05:08 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion, as it highlights what has to have been a decades-old hurdle for Team-Book writers who have been striving for a higher degree of realism, and who want to make their teams seem more relevant in a societally "realistic" setting. It does seem like there have been several attempts at defining the Team (or at least organizing it) using a real-world model of some sort. In the earliest incarnations, it came across pretty much as a service-focused club, as it were-- like the Lions Club or the Rotaries, say. But with super-powers and special gov't status when necessary. It's seemed like a loose branch of the gov't or military at times. Sometimes there's been a sports-franchise aura, with baseball caps & the ever-present focus on team identity. At one point there was a distinct big-time corporate template introduced (where Jarvis was running the compound w/ a huge staff)-- but it was discarded rather quickly. All noble attempts, IMO, and each with a claim to being a legitimate model-- but honestly, my gut feeling is that an Avengers-like team of superheroes simply could not exist in our society. Too powerful. Too uncontrollable. Not enough accountability when things go awry. If you took away the superpowers and just made them a group of capable civilians with extraordinary weapons, banding together for the common good, etc, the government and the military would clamp down on them in a heartbeat, yes? Complaints of vigilante-ism and being "above the law" would abound. . . and loudly so. And I do think rightly so (although I hate being such a spoilsport). Which is kind of why there's not exactly a true societal model to base them on. 'Cause they kind of ARE like the Red Cross, and like the police, and like a special forces military unit, and like a sports franchise, and like a private company, etc, etc.-- Just off the top of my head, this morn. . . HB I've never seen the point of ultra realism when you're dealing with Norse gods, men who wear battle armor that would take the same amount of power that would be needed to light up a small city, mutant witches, and advanced robots who reasonably duplicate human movement and emotion while possessing enough power to destroy a mountain range. It just seems pointless. The only thing you can do IMO, is create situations that make the unrealistic less important. Sure Thor has superpowers, but he has an overbearing father who doesn't like his girlfriend and his ungainly step brother is jealous of him. The heroic battles expose part of that personality but so do these more down to earth conflicts. That's not just in comics, BTW; that's pretty much any fiction. Twilight, Star Wars, Back to the Future any scifi or fantasy pretty much throws "what would happen if this was real" out the window. Because real would likely be mundane and the reflect the most banal and boring answer. Yes, those with powers would be killed or they'd hide or be registered by the government or experimented on or used as some sort of emergency force. And every one of these has been used as some sort of storyline or basis for a comic, yet they almost always become some sort of heroic storyline that goes right into the ridiculous and impossible. Why? Because I suspect even if you like 'em with feet of clay, people still like heroes and they want said hero to overcome a worthy foe, not sit around discussing super hero registration. In any case this is all navel gazing anyway; we'd like to say we know what people would likely do if there real super heroes, but you can't possibly know, unless it actually happens which is pretty bloody unlikely. However, heroic fiction has existed and thrived for so long that there's probably a reason. And I believe that people don't mind throwing out reality if they're entertained. And that's part of why the superhero for the most part must always operate from a position of overcoming a greater foe or challenge. I was going to write more but truthfully after reading the second part of the Wonder Man storyline in the Avengers Annual, I don't even have it in me anymore... Man, a topic like this is just the kind of stuff that's Sharkar's bread & butter. I surely hope she reads this and then feels compelled to offer her academically-enhanced view. . . ;D And then I'll agree with her, and be able to go to sleep more easily (me & the Toad. . . twin sons of different amphibious mothers-!) While there's no disputing that of course we can't ever really know how superheroes and their ilk could actually operate or exist in a hyper-realistic setting, I don't think that I agree that the attempt to do so as a fictional exercise is necessarily pointless or even dull. I think in that sense it's simply a matter of individual taste. Really, it's nothing more than the ol' magic "What If-?" that is the basis for practically any and every level of fantasy &/or SciFi. I think we've reached the same conclusion on this particular question, though-- that there's not really a true, analogous organization in the real world for the Avengers. . . or really any other SuperTeam. But pointless? Nah-- not at all. By keeping the society as real as possible, and the heroes themselves as human (and flawed and realistic) as possible, it provides a way to tell very human stories in fantastical trappings. Look at many of the best episodes of Buffy-- when you pull the vampire/horror elements out, you discover that the compelling personal stories remain intact and are just as moving. I've always found straight, traditional Sword & Sorcery to be impossible to surrender to because it was, well, completely unrelatable to me on any level. I recognize that there's tremendously good stuff out there, but it simply doesn't hook me in because the level to which it's divorced from any common human experience is too large for me to navigate (I freely admit, the failing may be mine). But these would indeed fall under the heading of "Different Tastes for Different Folks", yes? Ha-! And I have to say, FF, that the ol' Navel-Gazing charge is probably an apt one-- but heck, that's TOTALLY a part of what makes being a devotee of this genre' fun, right? It's almost a requirement, dating clear back to the earliest, earnest "Who's stronger: Underdog or Mighty Mouse?" debates of our youth-! (Well, hopefully it was back in our youth. . .  ) Now, where are ya, Shar? You're a lot more coherent about these things than I ever am. . . HB
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 9, 2012 23:47:52 GMT -5
Man, a topic like this is just the kind of stuff that's Sharkar's bread & butter. I surely hope she reads this and then feels compelled to offer her academically-enhanced view. . . ;D And then I'll agree with her, and be able to go to sleep more easily (me & the Toad. . . twin sons of different amphibious mothers-!) While there's no disputing that of course we can't ever really know how superheroes and their ilk could actually operate or exist in a hyper-realistic setting, I don't think that I agree that the attempt to do so as a fictional exercise is necessarily pointless or even dull. I think in that sense it's simply a matter of individual taste. Really, it's nothing more than the ol' magic "What If-?" that is the basis for practically any and every level of fantasy &/or SciFi. I think we've reached the same conclusion on this particular question, though-- that there's not really a true, analogous organization in the real world for the Avengers. . . or really any other SuperTeam. But pointless? Nah-- not at all. By keeping the society as real as possible, and the heroes themselves as human (and flawed and realistic) as possible, it provides a way to tell very human stories in fantastical trappings. Look at many of the best episodes of Buffy-- when you pull the vampire/horror elements out, you discover that the compelling personal stories remain intact and are just as moving. I've always found straight, traditional Sword & Sorcery to be impossible to surrender to because it was, well, completely unrelatable to me on any level. I recognize that there's tremendously good stuff out there, but it simply doesn't hook me in because the level to which it's divorced from any common human experience is too large for me to navigate (I freely admit, the failing may be mine). But these would indeed fall under the heading of "Different Tastes for Different Folks", yes? Ha-! And I have to say, FF, that the ol' Navel-Gazing charge is probably an apt one-- but heck, that's TOTALLY a part of what makes being a devotee of this genre' fun, right? It's almost a requirement, dating clear back to the earliest, earnest "Who's stronger: Underdog or Mighty Mouse?" debates of our youth-! (Well, hopefully it was back in our youth. . . ) Now, where are ya, Shar? You're a lot more coherent about these things than I ever am. . . HB Ah, well I guess I more mean it gets pointless to examine in minutiae the realism of superheroes. For example, as a former physics minor, I find the whole comic universe silly from top to bottom. For example, ever seen a supervillain pull a girder down from a building skeleton? Well how is that possible? In 99% of cases, the girder weighs more than the person pulling it, he would just do a pull up instead of pulling it down. Even with super strength, he needs to obey gravity... Or how about holding a building at one corner and keeping it from falling? The building would just fall anyway. It's not a solid, the component pieces will break down... Or flying faster than sound and talking? Or breathing without external apparatus flying that fast? Or hell just getting radiation poisoning and tumors instead of become spidery or half ton green monster when exposed to too many rads...? So I suppose tackling all of those sorts of things would make comics more realistic, but inherently less fun. As such I just kind of check my understanding of physics at the door so I can enjoy the story. Once I've done that, the idea that "superhero- quasicops" seems okay as anything else... I also think we're confusing resonance with realism. I too am not a big fan of sword and sorcery, but I think these stories appeal to nomadic types who don't want to be tied down, and their world seems so big and unconnected because they want it to be that way; no worries, just a lone guy cutting a swath through women and adventure. The one guy I know who is a big sword and sandal fan is a lifelong bachelor and I think it reflects a lot of who he is that he likes that so. And that resonates with him. But I've enjoyed some far out stuff that didn't fit the genres I like because it tugged the heartstrings in the right way. I grew up in the eighties and saw flicks like Enemy Mine and Starman, both of which should've bored my young self who was looking for Star Wars style entertainment. But they were interesting, scifi stories that were really just disguised stories about family and romance, respectively. I just find in my experience all your really need is to have the characters reach something universal in your story and that's when you mine good emotional stuff. Doesn't have to be realistic to do that. In fact, once you get bogged in those kinds of details, I find you often lose that emotional core. I find that especially true of a lot of current comics. I really don't care when these heroes and villains die these days, unless I have a strong tie to them from years ago. A lot of current comics don't make me feel anything but annoyed. |
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jan 10, 2012 15:43:31 GMT -5
One of the "aspects" of the original Ultimates series that I found interesting was the more "scientific" Marvel Universe in the "Ultimate" universe. It seemed like Millar created a world where things could not be written off as "magical" or "mythical". The mystery of THOR was VERY intriguing to me---was he just some crazy guy, an alien....  Then by the end of Ultimates 2, that fresh concept of a "magic-less" Ultimate Universe came crashing down (for me), when demons and Asgardian gods and monsters came to Earth. It just kinda ruined the Ultimate Universe for me. Then other writers (Loeb, etc.) really started screwing up the Ultimate U.....halfway thru issue #1 of Ultimates 3 I could see the world Millar had created in Ultimates 1 and 2 was ruined. But am I reading into this wrong, or did anyone else like the Ultimates and Ultimate Thor before the "magic" was brought in; a world more like the one we live in? |
|
)
