|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Jan 15, 2012 17:30:28 GMT -5
Freedomfighter: could you please summarize for me the second part of Wonder Man and the Revengers´ story on the Avengers annual? What happens with the other Revengers once they are defeated...? You see, I may well be the only one here, but I have a soft spot in my heart for D-Man (on the other hand, it seems pretty obvious to me that Bendis doesn`t care at all for the character).
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jan 16, 2012 19:07:34 GMT -5
I can step in there, all the Revengers have been apprehended and were in custody by the end of the book. It looked like a superhuman prison, but only Wonder Man's jail was showed properly - a sort of energy sphere. In the very last panel, Wondie disappears but we don't know if the same happens to the other members of his group.
As for D-Man, he was clearly out of his mind, talking about the Infinity Gems and "the cosmic wave".
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 17, 2012 8:53:53 GMT -5
Freedomfighter: could you please summarize for me the second part of Wonder Man and the Revengers´ story on the Avengers annual? What happens with the other Revengers once they are defeated...? You see, I may well be the only one here, but I have a soft spot in my heart for D-Man (on the other hand, it seems pretty obvious to me that Bendis doesn`t care at all for the character). I know nothing about Wonderman or the Revengers (Though it sounds as if Wondie has gone bad? I don't like the sound of that.) However, you are not the only one with a soft spot for D-Man. I've always liked the oddball quirky characters that don't necessarily have the whole superhero thing together like the Great Lakes Avengers or Butterball. What I really love is to see characters like that slowly get it together and eventually achieve something no one thought they would (No, I don't mean like having Squirrel Girl defeat Dr. Doom. That was just silly.) It sounds, though again I only know what I've read here, that Bendis is going the opposite direction with D-Man. It seems to me taking that kind of character and dragging him down is just taking the easy way out.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 17, 2012 11:05:03 GMT -5
Freedomfighter: could you please summarize for me the second part of Wonder Man and the Revengers´ story on the Avengers annual? What happens with the other Revengers once they are defeated...? You see, I may well be the only one here, but I have a soft spot in my heart for D-Man (on the other hand, it seems pretty obvious to me that Bendis doesn`t care at all for the character). The sad thing is if Bendis were truly creative, he could actually do something with the character. D-Man was shown to have become a little...eccentric living below ground, but I don't think the character was ever shown to be mentally unstable until Bendis starting messing with him in "The Pulse" storyline a few years back. If you're going to introduce mental illness into a character, maybe you should have a nice suitable storyarc for it. Instead he pretty much just threw it out there and then did away with it as a short bit in The Pulse. Compare that with what Peter David did with the Hulk and his history of mental instability, or when the Genis Vell Captain Marvel went insane. In both cases he introduced a story concept and followed it through, fleshed it out, really explored the topic. Bendis just seems to like to touch on topics and then leave them floating- I suppose he feels its more realistic as things don't get resolved in the real world. The problem is, this is heroic fiction, for me this sort of non-resolution just feels incomplete. Many of the best scripted dramas that he lovingly refers to in interviews like the Shield and Breaking Bad have storyarcs that lead the viewer somewhere. Where does Bendis take his characters? They seem to have the same loop everytime. For example the recent Dark Avengers storyline feels like an exact copy of the first, and that feels like the Hood storyline that ran for a year (i.e. lower level threat villain has high aspirations, gains greater powers and assembles teams of villains). To me, three of his dominant storyarcs seem exactly alike. And this latest one with Wonder Man and the Revengers just feels like more wheel spinning. Here's Wonder Man, worrying if he's a ghost (even though it's been long established he's ionic energy and Simon is enough of a scientist to understand that Wanda didn't bring him back to life since you cannot "kill" energy). Now let's just assume all the various times he's been killed by Zemo, the Grandmaster, Thanos, Korvac, et al. didn't register and ONLY Wanda bringing him back seems to have set him off, fine let's just run with that because BMB says so. Since super heroes are a danger what does he do? He assembles a group of mentally unstable heroes/villains and has them attack in midtown Manhattan. So let's recap; to fight the danger that is the Avengers, he assembles villains and mentally unstable heroes and has a fight in midtown Manhattan with hundreds, maybe thousands of ordinary folks in potential danger. Sigh... I could go on about this storyline for ten pages; how each twist and turn should have an editor saying to BMB "huh?" and "how do you plan to take this story to a conclusion that leaves the reader both satisfied with their motivations and wanting more?" But it would be pointless. Those who like BMB's style won't care and those don't already agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 18, 2012 3:54:13 GMT -5
...But it would be pointless. Those who like BMB's style won't care and those don't already agree with me. I think that is a pretty blinkered and binary view. I think the truth may be somewhere between the two. For you it may be all or nothing, but to make your sweeping generalisation, well that is by default inaccurate without anything to prove otherwise. Take any Avengers writer of any decent length of tenure and I think for most readers there will be a mix of good and bad in differing proportions. For example, Kurt Busiek is probably my favourite Avengers author, yet i still think he had some bum notes in his work. The moment an opinion is so heavily biased against the work of a specific author then the qualities of that work (if there are any) will be overlooked. I think your criticism of Wonder Man's motivations is fair - unless we learn later maybe that he himself is irrational for some additional as-yet undisclosed reason. But only time will tell on that. It was sad to see D-Man used in a way that did not stand up to the best of his past or even the sensitivity of his appearances in the Busiek era. Overall these two Annuals have been unsatisfying to me as a reader who is generally favourable to BMB, and they felt like there was more story that needed to be told, as well as the fact that they should not have broken the story up by months.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 18, 2012 10:26:02 GMT -5
...But it would be pointless. Those who like BMB's style won't care and those don't already agree with me. I think that is a pretty blinkered and binary view. I think the truth may be somewhere between the two. For you it may be all or nothing, but to make your sweeping generalisation, well that is by default inaccurate without anything to prove otherwise. Take any Avengers writer of any decent length of tenure and I think for most readers there will be a mix of good and bad in differing proportions. For example, Kurt Busiek is probably my favourite Avengers author, yet i still think he had some bum notes in his work. The moment an opinion is so heavily biased against the work of a specific author then the qualities of that work (if there are any) will be overlooked. I think your criticism of Wonder Man's motivations is fair - unless we learn later maybe that he himself is irrational for some additional as-yet undisclosed reason. But only time will tell on that. It was sad to see D-Man used in a way that did not stand up to the best of his past or even the sensitivity of his appearances in the Busiek era. Overall these two Annuals have been unsatisfying to me as a reader who is generally favourable to BMB, and they felt like there was more story that needed to be told, as well as the fact that they should not have broken the story up by months. I'm basing my POV on years of debating the topic on various posts here and other message boards. Whenever I point out various deficiencies in Marvel editorial and basic storytelling, the Bendis supporters would point to his Eisner awards and how great Powers is and how well Avengers was selling. This two annual storyline is a perfect example. If you go online and read reviews, you'll see so many of the opinions are varied but those who love the story point to how interesting it is, for example, to have a superhero "whistleblower" and the other various concepts BMB throws up on the wall during the story. And those who don't like it are bothered by the lack of internal logic, the sudden completely out of character shifts, the lack of resolution, etc. Now one can say there are plenty of clunkers in Busiek's run, just as any other writers, but for the most part, these stories are written well in that as an editor, I wouldn't go in and make a ton of changes. Like the Kulan Gath storyline, the stories just don't resonate with me, but do they reach a conclusion, they remain true to the characters, there's internal logic. To me, that's wholly different than the BMB argument I'm making. Now you may not agree with the argument, which is fine, but it is based primarily on how people appreciate the style of the writer. Those who appreciate Bendis don't mind my criticisms. If they did, then his work wouldn't sell, because they are his stylistic choices. To me they're as obvious as liking certain art styles. So people who like Rob Liefeld for example have already accepted his take on anatomy and backgrounds, etc. and me pointing out what I don't like about them isn't going to change their mind.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jan 18, 2012 10:53:28 GMT -5
Which is all fair and reasonable, but I take issue with the notion that it is either/or for everyone re: BMB.
What I suspect is that there are a vocal few strongly pro-BMB, and a vocal few strongly anti-BMB, and of the other tens on tens of thousands of Avengers fans and readers (past or present) there is a position somewhere between the two rather than there being only the two stances.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 19, 2012 0:39:35 GMT -5
Which is all fair and reasonable, but I take issue with the notion that it is either/or for everyone re: BMB. What I suspect is that there are a vocal few strongly pro-BMB, and a vocal few strongly anti-BMB, and of the other tens on tens of thousands of Avengers fans and readers (past or present) there is a position somewhere between the two rather than there being only the two stances. Would you be more comfortable with the idea that those who like BMB's writing style aren't likely to find fault with this story? I don't think this particular tale is any worse or better than his usual efforts and those who've liked previous stories wouldn't find any exceptional fault here. And conversely, those who've never liked his work won't find much to change their minds here. My point really is that I don't want to go on simply because I can make a ton of points that really won't matter if you are a fan or a detractor. To the people who really care, these things are going to be what draw them to, or repel them away from the work For example, I could say to someone, if you hated Aaron Sorkin's writing on the West Wing you still might enjoy his screenplay The Social Network because he doesn't do his "Aaron Sorkin" style that is so present in his other work like Sports Night. But if someone hated Sports Night, I wouldn't recommend West Wing because the style is so similar. But that's for someone who comes in with a strong opinion. This leaves a vast number of people who don't feel much either way in their own category welcome to come to the work however they like. But I think anyone with a strong opinion is likely to keep that opinion in the same fashion after reading these stories.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 27, 2012 1:56:43 GMT -5
I went to my local comic shop and re-read the whole thing again at the racks (because I wouldn't buy this book simply for research purposes) and my major problem is the argument bendis makes simply doesn't hold one bit of water. first is the argument that the Avengers as a concept don't work- they'll do more harm than good. By God, how? Yes, Ultron has caused significant damage and loss of life. Thousands? I suppose. So The Avengers disband. Then the Kree come to earth to conquer and everybody dies. So you lost billions because you couldn't reconcile that sometimes good intentions will lead to bad things. Will Simon Williams go back in time and kill Einstein for helping develop nuclear weapons? After all, he was a well intentioned scientist who created something that has become a menace to all life on earth. And it seems as if Simon only wants to get the Avengers. But what of the FF? Didn't they go into the Negative Zone exploring and lead Annihilus and Blastaar to earth? Didn't they find Namor and revive him along with his war with the surface world? Didn't they save Galactus when his galaxy wide genocide could've been halted? Reed Richards has untold trillions of deaths on his head (and don't give me that higher purpose baloney for Galactus. Why is his purpose any more special than any other predator in the universe?). I'm sure if you read deep enough into any superteam's history you'll find that they've caused a lot of harm in addition to their good. But then the alternative is no superheroes or gov't sanctioned heroes who only act when told, which would be an inept group for sure (look at how at odds our current American gov't is. Can you imagine the politicking that would occur i.e. "we can't send the gov't superteam because this is an election year and we don't the president's popularity to rise."). Next Bendis goes back to the well again on his Wanda diatribe... Sigh. I find this so pointless. Any person who reads comics knows its a boring and repetitive plot device that heroes die and come back. It's overused, hackneyed and dull because we all know there's little or no permanence to it. It's often a lame sales tactic that is repealed before the ink is dry on next year's calendar. So once you pull back the curtain on it, the whole coming back to life thing, then what? It would be freaky to die and come back to life, assuredly. yet superheroes do it probably once a year. So are they ALL going to go freakoid nuts every time? It's just done so poorly without any real explanation as to why this particular Wanda related "death" (Hawkeye had the same reaction by the way) has had such long term resonance as opposed to time Simon was touched by the actual real (in Marvel reality anyway) personification of Death which I think happened in an Avengers Annual... So Wonder Man has probably got a dozen deaths under his hat at this point. He's gone to hell in own short lived book, and fought perhaps not THE DEVIL, but a devil but none of that unhinged him. He fought a personification of true evil, in a version of hell, and fought the real personification of death and he was cool with all that, yet Wanda bringing him back from the dead is what does it to him?? That's what drives him over the cliff because she brought him back as pure energy after his ionic atoms were scattered? Okay...then what does Simon think about Goliath/Atlas/Erik Josten? Same exact thing has happened to him TWO OR THREE TIMES!!! He's been scattered to the wind, his ionic energy dissipating and he's seemingly dead. Read it for yourself in his marvel bio. marvel.com/universe/Atlas_%28Erik_Josten%29Did Scarlet Witch bring him back too? Every time? Without knowing it? Now one can say, "oh but the Avengers don't know everything...why would they know about Atlas and why would Simon know?" I dunno, maybe they do research on their villains?? here's what marvel's own wikia says about Josten's reformations: marvel.wikia.com/Erik_Josten_%28Earth-616%29 While attempting to defeat the criminal mastermind Count Nefaria, Atlas was forced to absorb into his body the discharge from Nefaria's ionic bomb. This destabilized Atlas' own ionic energies, causing him to grow uncontrollably and eventually discorporate. It remains to be seen whether this signals the end of Josten's career or the beginning of a new chapter in his life.
Later, however, he was kidnapped and controlled by Count Nefaria, who had found that he could mentally dominate people such as Josten who were powered by ionic energy. Wholly transformed into a being of ionic energy by Nefaria, Josten fought the Avengers and the Thunderbolts before the two teams united to defeat Nefaria. Josten's body was unaccustomed to the stresses that were unleashed by Nefaria's manipulation and was forced to be hospitalized. Josten then became the target of the latest Scourge (a.k.a. Nomad) who was hunting down and killing various members of the Thunderbolts. Josten was forced to fight Scourge, but his powers over-extended, threatening to destroy the immediate area. Scourge helped confine Josten with the help of size-altering Pym Particles, but Josten had perished in the explosion.
However, since Josten was by this time a being comprised of ionic energy, he in fact did not die. His ionic essence was able to seek out Dallas Riordan, contacting her through their mutual love. With Riordan's help, Josten could suffuse her being with his energy, allowing Josten to share her body. When Josten is in control of her body, Riordan appears as a fully-charged ionic being. The part of this that's most important? However, since Josten was by this time a being comprised of ionic energy, he in fact did not die.So Marvel has established this as pretty much canon- that Josten has died in a very similar way to Simon at least twice and come back without thinking he was dead and nobody ever brings it up to Simon Williams? "We've pretty much established that you can't die once you become ionic energy just no longer corporeal able to eventually reform and probably can present a ton of research to prove it, but let's let a guy as strong as Thor stay mad about something..." So The Avengers as a force for good outweigh the relatively low body count that has come out of their worst mistakes (lives saved? Billions. lives lost? Thousands. ) That's pretty much pointless to try and make that argument. And Wanda didn't do anything to Simon that he couldn't do himself and its been established that ionic beings in the marvel universe don't die. So as an editor I would say to BMB "go back and show me why these arguments against your story don't work. If you can come up with good legitimate outs, then write the story. If not, then scrap it, because it currently doesn't hold water..."
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jan 27, 2012 10:01:41 GMT -5
Hoo-boy, am I ever glad I didn't buy this. It's just. . . the writer (Bendis), he's masquerading a philosophically stupid and shallow conceit with impassioned-yet-conversational dialog. He's mastered the high-school lit student's art of masquerading a hopelessly weak thesis with conviction and easy phrasing, and passing it off all-too-often as having substance. (Lord knows, I'm probably guilty of that very same crime on these boards-- pretty much a habitual offender!).
For a character- ANY character- to be suffering such terrible angst over the fact that they "may not even be real"-?? Hello??? Descartes and the most mundane, overused, self-evident line in all of philosophical history? ("I think, therefore I etc."-?) I am horrified that plumbing the depths of the first week of a community college Philosophy 101 class is an exciting, intriguing, unplumbed character twist in the mind of this writer. Geeze, he's GOT to be better than that--- what a stupid, lazy, poorly-examined motivation he's come up with here for Simon. What utter nonesense.
Good job on the research, F-Fighter. Obviously, in the Marvel U the few beings who have become ionic-energy based life forms are able to maintain a cohesive, re-constitutable consciousness even when their corporeal form is. . . discorporated. It looks like they can't do it voluntarily, and that they're not conscious when in that disbanded state, but they remain "alive" in a suspended state, nonetheless.
Sort of like Sea Monkeys, I guess.
But made of ionic energy.
And we've seen it all before. Wanda's kids, of course. And remember the delightful young woman that Zeus & Hera "created" for Hercules many years back? Who even as she was "dying" was protesting that she thought and she felt and was a person-? Heck, she was less real than Simon by a long shot, and yet was heartbreakingly resolute in her humanity. (I actually thought that the consequences of that plot-line were far too easily and quickly washed over. This was a truly unforgivable crime on Zeus' part-)
And with that, gotta get back to work---
HB
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jan 27, 2012 16:13:11 GMT -5
Wow, is there still any argument whether BMB is a sh!tty writer or not?
Save your money, don't buy his crap.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 27, 2012 22:13:43 GMT -5
The point where Iron Man is saying "oh no" on the page from the annual I was thinking, "is he speaking for all the fans who've grown tired of Bendis and his annoyingly repetitive theme about Wanda..." The sad part is there are ways to make these stories work, there are ways to tell an interesting story about a hero who keeps coming back from the dead and reconcile these story points, but bendis just doesn't bother. Hell Valkyrie is an Avenger now, a shieldmaiden of death, whose powers include knowing when someone is at death's door. A far more interesting story to me would be her and Simon interacting- is he indeed a shade of some sort, or just a different life form and him being afraid of the answer from her as to just what he is exactly. But no, Bendis has to go to the mundane, the most common, trite Philosophy 101 story thread. And also, he really butchers former Force Works character Century as a character as well. It's like he doesn't even bother to read the old stories...
|
|