|
Post by woodside on May 31, 2012 23:01:54 GMT -5
Didn't you come into this thread solely to express how Whedon would be a lousy writer on the Avengers comic? So let's recap; you came into the thread to complain about a writer, but then get annoyed when people in greater numbers complain about a different writer? Nope. If you read my post, you would see that I was simply critical of him, citing things that were both Whedons strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't complaining. I simply stating that I didn't think he would work very well on a team comic like the Avengers. Whedon's style is very cinematic with a heavy focus on character and less on plot. This works well with movies, because these things go through several re-writes with several different people. The Astonishing X-Men story in question has notable plot holes and inconsistent story elements. The characters are great, but the four stories of that run are a little sloppy. That doesn't make Whedon a lousy writer. It makes him a writer that focuses more on the cinematic elements of a comic (creating big, splashy scenes) and character development. And no point did I refer to Whedon as lousy and I certainly didn't call him a hack like you did Bendis. Why was this thread even written as an anti-Bendis thread anyways? Why the negativity? Why not have it be called "Joss Whedon should write the Avengers comic" and focus on how cool it would be to have Joss Whedon -- as opposed to the beating of a dead horse that is Bendis bashing?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 1, 2012 5:28:35 GMT -5
Didn't you come into this thread solely to express how Whedon would be a lousy writer on the Avengers comic? So let's recap; you came into the thread to complain about a writer, but then get annoyed when people in greater numbers complain about a different writer? Nope. If you read my post, you would see that I was simply critical of him, citing things that were both Whedons strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't complaining. I simply stating that I didn't think he would work very well on a team comic like the Avengers. Whedon's style is very cinematic with a heavy focus on character and less on plot. This works well with movies, because these things go through several re-writes with several different people. The Astonishing X-Men story in question has notable plot holes and inconsistent story elements. The characters are great, but the four stories of that run are a little sloppy. That doesn't make Whedon a lousy writer. It makes him a writer that focuses more on the cinematic elements of a comic (creating big, splashy scenes) and character development. And no point did I refer to Whedon as lousy and I certainly didn't call him a hack like you did Bendis. Why was this thread even written as an anti-Bendis thread anyways? Why the negativity? Why not have it be called "Joss Whedon should write the Avengers comic" and focus on how cool it would be to have Joss Whedon -- as opposed to the beating of a dead horse that is Bendis bashing? This is sort of tangential, but Whedon did write a couple of years' worth of "seasons" of Buffy comic books after the show was cancelled, didn't he? Has anyone read those? Do they lend any support to his capabilities as a comic-book writer? I think I've heard mixed reviews-- and the couple of times I picked one up, was rather put off by the art. It seems like that might be a better guage of his facility with the medium than one X-Men mini-series, though. HB
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Jun 1, 2012 6:38:44 GMT -5
I've read the Buffy Whedon stories, and Fray (a future slayer series), and enjoyed them. Mostly other writers handle the Buffy franchise comics, including Christos Gage on Angel and Faith. But I'd say Whedon is a much better comic book writer than most, albeit as a fan of his work I'm sort of bound to have that opinion. If I can go back to the thread's theme once more, it may seem to be yet more Bendis bashing to some, but I really do think that the movie shows and proves that the core ideas of the franchise, as it was before Bendis, can sell, and work. The pro-Bendis camp maintained that his high sales rate proved that his approach was right, the movie's phenomenal success suggests other approaches can also pay off, in both financial and artistic terms. I do understand that it's boring to read the same complaints over and over, but surely the movie brings a new angle at which to consider things, new information, new ways to think about it. It seems sometimes that if we stick to "I don't like the comics" we get shouted at for repetition. If we try to branch out to new territory like this thread it's condemned as "yet more Bendis bashing", and to be fair, that is true. But at least it's new Bendis bashing. It's not the same old same old. I'm not going to shout down a Bendis fan, if his work brings you enjoyment, good for you and him. But I will from time to time return to the subject to point out what I consider repetitive or lacking in his work, for as long as he writes the title I used to collect, and used to consider my favourite. I would suggest that those Bendis fans who tire of this sort of thread simply not read it, just as Bendis fans often suggest to his detractors that we not read his work.
The movie is the movie. I confess that I've used it as a stick with which to beat the dead horse of Bendis, both here and on other boards. Ultimately the movie will outlast the Bendis era, and will stand or fall on it's own merits.
I'm sure that pro or anti Bendis, we can agree that the movie was good, and is a common ground for Avengers fans of all shades of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 1, 2012 14:07:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's beating a dead horse if the horse is not dead. Bendis is still actively writing Avengers titles. Once he's been gone for a year or so, I'll agree that it's time for the Bendis bashing to stop.
To use an analagy - I hate bleu cheese. I don't really complain about it though because I can have all of my favorite foods as much as I like without it. If suddenly my favorite foods were only available covered in bleu cheese, I'd complain a lot. Then, if one day, someone served me a delicious meal without bleu cheese, I'm sure I'd just be reminded of how much better life was without it coating everything and that would prompt additional bleu cheese bashing. For me, the Avengers equal my favorite foods and Bendis is the bleu cheese (all stinky and moldy, lol). The movie was a delicious meal. Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jun 1, 2012 15:13:53 GMT -5
To answer woodside's question about why I started this thread, well just read my initial post. If you are someone who understands what made the Avengers great, you will get it. If you are a poser Avengers fan, or a fan of crap like Bendis writes, you won't get it. The movie reminded me of how great the Avengers are/were, and it is frustrating for fans like myself to think that there isn't a (current) Avengers comic book that gets even close to the greatness of the movie. In fact, the Avengers books written by Bendis are a slap in the face for real fans. I know I don't HAVE to buy them, but I want a proper Avengers comic book written by a GOOD writer. And I'm, sorry humanbelly, but I've voted with my wallet too, and I'm glad I've now saved lots of cash (and I sold my New Avengers run, too), but it really hasn't gotten us what we want, has it? Like I've stated, anyone who wants to make an argument about how "great" Bendis is, well PLEASE give me an example. I liked ALIAS, that was BMB's baby: but ruining a book with the history of the Avengers is CRIMINAL, IMHO. And this isn't the first time. I HATED the early-mid- 90s, the "jacket" Avengers, Crystal (uggh), Sersi (boo!), Deathcry (huh?), "bug Jan", and I stopped buying that crap, too. But Marvel FINALLY got smart and brought in Busiek and Perez to fix the AVENGERS Marvel, PLEASE FIX THE AVENGERS AGAIN! I don't care about profits, the product is rotten! As always, spiderwasp comes to my rescue with a great post. I can't wait until the lingering STINK of Blue Cheese is gone FOREVER! Hey at least this thread got some feedback, unlike my reviews of Avengers Academy.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 1, 2012 23:03:21 GMT -5
If you are a poser Avengers fan, or a fan of crap like Bendis writes, you won't get it. Guess I don't get it. I clearly did not enjoy the movie because I'm a Bendis fan. Oh well. Why do I even bother with this stupid forum?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 2, 2012 5:44:19 GMT -5
To answer woodside's question about why I started this thread, well just read my initial post. If you are someone who understands what made the Avengers great, you will get it. If you are a poser Avengers fan, or a fan of crap like Bendis writes, you won't get it. Hmm-- this strikes me as being quite unecessarily combative, confrontational, and disrespectful. You're setting yourself up as the ultimate arbitor of who is or isn't a "true" Avengers fan, based on your own preferences as the criteria? With no room for dissent or other opinions? If one disagrees, then one clearly doesn't love the Avengers? While I understand your passion, do try to remember that we're all real people here, SF. Ultimately, these are works of fiction and fantasy, and while beloved, not worth tearing one single person down over. I would assume a board like this wants to thrive as a large tent, not a small one. HB
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Jun 2, 2012 12:21:47 GMT -5
To answer woodside's question about why I started this thread, well just read my initial post. If you are someone who understands what made the Avengers great, you will get it. If you are a poser Avengers fan, or a fan of crap like Bendis writes, you won't get it. Hmm-- this strikes me as being quite unecessarily combative, confrontational, and disrespectful. You're setting yourself up as the ultimate arbitor of who is or isn't a "true" Avengers fan, based on your own preferences as the criteria? With no room for dissent or other opinions? If one disagrees, then one clearly doesn't love the Avengers? While I understand your passion, do try to remember that we're all real people here, SF. Ultimately, these are works of fiction and fantasy, and while beloved, not worth tearing one single person down over. I would assume a board like this wants to thrive as a large tent, not a small one. HB Very well said HB. I like Bendis' Avengers work as a whole; it isn't the greatest and it isn't the worst, in my opinion, but I have followed it. But as you say, to extrapolate outwards from my opinion, from anyone single opinion - that anyone who disagrees is not an Avengers fan - or worse not the 'right kind of Avengers fan' is a pretty narrow and blinkered view-point.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 2, 2012 13:35:44 GMT -5
1) Bendis fans aren't [always] posers 2) These boards aren't [always] stupid 3) Bleu Cheese is [always] stinky, and moldy... that's what makes it SO delicious.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 2, 2012 13:44:29 GMT -5
Nope. If you read my post, you would see that I was simply critical of him, citing things that were both Whedons strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't complaining. I simply stating that I didn't think he would work very well on a team comic like the Avengers. Whedon's style is very cinematic with a heavy focus on character and less on plot. This works well with movies, because these things go through several re-writes with several different people. The Astonishing X-Men story in question has notable plot holes and inconsistent story elements. The characters are great, but the four stories of that run are a little sloppy. That doesn't make Whedon a lousy writer. It makes him a writer that focuses more on the cinematic elements of a comic (creating big, splashy scenes) and character development. And no point did I refer to Whedon as lousy and I certainly didn't call him a hack like you did Bendis. Why was this thread even written as an anti-Bendis thread anyways? Why the negativity? Why not have it be called "Joss Whedon should write the Avengers comic" and focus on how cool it would be to have Joss Whedon -- as opposed to the beating of a dead horse that is Bendis bashing? I couldn't disagree more, my friend. However, I'm certainly willing to hear you out RE: the plot holes and inconsistent story elements in Astonishing X-Men. Could you give us the specifics? The reason I ask (since this thread is about comparing Whedon and Bendis... a fair discussion, I believe, now that the movie has come out) is I don't believe Whedon is a sloppy writer. That being said, I may have missed his mistakes. I ask for clarification out of curiousity, not antagonism.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2012 16:08:31 GMT -5
Didn't you come into this thread solely to express how Whedon would be a lousy writer on the Avengers comic? So let's recap; you came into the thread to complain about a writer, but then get annoyed when people in greater numbers complain about a different writer? Nope. If you read my post, you would see that I was simply critical of him, citing things that were both Whedons strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't complaining. I simply stating that I didn't think he would work very well on a team comic like the Avengers. Whedon's style is very cinematic with a heavy focus on character and less on plot. This works well with movies, because these things go through several re-writes with several different people. The Astonishing X-Men story in question has notable plot holes and inconsistent story elements. The characters are great, but the four stories of that run are a little sloppy. That doesn't make Whedon a lousy writer. It makes him a writer that focuses more on the cinematic elements of a comic (creating big, splashy scenes) and character development. And no point did I refer to Whedon as lousy and I certainly didn't call him a hack like you did Bendis. Why was this thread even written as an anti-Bendis thread anyways? Why the negativity? Why not have it be called "Joss Whedon should write the Avengers comic" and focus on how cool it would be to have Joss Whedon -- as opposed to the beating of a dead horse that is Bendis bashing? If you read MY post, you'd see I didn't call bendis a hack...I also didn't say you'd say that Whedon was a lousy writer, but rather I was restating that you thought he'd wouldn't be good on Avengers. And if he wouldn't be good, he'd be anywhere between so-so and bad right? And is lousy just another way of saying he'd be mediocre to bad? It's not the worst word to describe someone. It's not awful or terrible, just lousy. And did you not make the point was he wouldn't do a very good job on the Avengers based on his run of X-Men where your critique is that he couldn't tell a story. Pretty much the whole point of writing is to tell a story, so if he's not doing that then he's not doing a very good job of writing, is he? But that's not a complaint?? Whatever. I guess it's not really worth worrying over; after all this isn't the first time we have been on total opposite sides of an issue and likely won't be the last... However I do think you should really pay more attention to the content of both our statements. But if not, that's fine, it's a just a messageboard. I don't get my feelings hurt over something so trivial.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 2, 2012 16:31:39 GMT -5
1) Bendis fans aren't [always] posers 2) These boards aren't [always] stupid 3) Bleu Cheese is [always] stinky, and moldy... that's what makes it SO delicious. Oh! That's right-- thanks for the reminder, Bill. Even though I'm sorta bleu cheese-neutral, Spiderwasp, your post had the almost comically reverse effect of making me totally CRAVE a bleu cheese burger-! Man. . . with bacon. . . (perhaps if you'd used an example involving wheat germ or lima beans there could have been more health-friendly unintended consequences. . . ;D_ HB
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 2, 2012 19:16:11 GMT -5
I couldn't disagree more, my friend. However, I'm certainly willing to hear you out RE: the plot holes and inconsistent story elements in Astonishing X-Men. Could you give us the specifics? The reason I ask (since this thread is about comparing Whedon and Bendis... a fair discussion, I believe, now that the movie has come out) is I don't believe Whedon is a sloppy writer. That being said, I may have missed his mistakes. I ask for clarification out of curiousity, not antagonism. I've reviewed the series over at my Uncanny X-Periment blog, which is what I'm citing here: Regarding "Gifted:" Regarding "Danger:" So my problem with the first two arcs are mainly a lack of originality. These are well told stories, but they offer very little in terms of creativity and new-ness. Regarding both "Hellfire" and "Unstoppable:" Now that is lazy writing. Personally, I think Whedon wouldn't be a good fit on Avengers. But I also don't think that comic writers should be divided into "GREAT" and "LOUSY." My point is simply that I don't think he would be a great fit for the Avengers. I want someone who will move the franchise forward, who won't be afraid to change it and bring in new ideas. I don't think Whedon is that kinda writer. His scripts are great, his characters are excellent, but his villains and threats lack.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 2, 2012 23:57:27 GMT -5
So my problem with the first two arcs are mainly a lack of originality. These are well told stories, but they offer very little in terms of creativity and new-ness. Personally, I think Whedon wouldn't be a good fit on Avengers. But I also don't think that comic writers should be divided into "GREAT" and "LOUSY." My point is simply that I don't think he would be a great fit for the Avengers. I want someone who will move the franchise forward, who won't be afraid to change it and bring in new ideas. I don't think Whedon is that kinda writer. His scripts are great, his characters are excellent, but his villains and threats lack. Well, you know what they say: "There's nothing new under the sun". Your criteria for originality disqualifies just about every super hero storyteller in the biz. When it comes to team dynamics, you say Whedon isn't good, yet Bendis is. The thing is, Bendis IS unoriginal. Those of us who've been fans of the Avengers (and Marvel) for a long time have seen the team: - Disassembled - Split into multiple teams - Inflitrated by the enemy - At odds with the government and operating under the radar - Welcome in new, untested characters from the MU - Rebuild their headquarters as a new structure - Return to the Mansion headquarters - Lose members in death - Get those members back - Travel through time - Fight off an undetected "secret invasion" - Confront an organized villain team - Deal with the risks of having children and civilians present at the HQ - Engage in intergalactic wars - Organize a proactive strikeforce You criticize Whedon's excellent work on Astonishing as unoriginal, but won't measure Bendis with the same ruler. I can assure you that Whedon is not lazy, sloppy or unoriginal.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 3, 2012 0:46:02 GMT -5
To answer woodside's question about why I started this thread, well just read my initial post. Your thread here has inspired me to revisit Whedon's work on Astonishing X-Men, for which I am grateful. The odds that he'll be hired to take over the Avengers franchise are long, but certainly worth dreaming about. It's no secret that I'm also a DnA fan. I'm pulling for them to get it! Ironically enough, with the appearance of Thanos at the end of the Avengers Assemble comic book, as penned by Bendis, EVERYONE is claiming that Bendis will be taking his Superstar skills to the Cosmic Corner to write the Guardians of the Galaxy. Word for the day: CRESTFALLEN: adj; "Dispirited and depressed; dejected" - thank you Meriam Webster
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 3, 2012 0:46:22 GMT -5
You criticize Whedon's excellent work on Astonishing as unoriginal, but won't measure Bendis with the same ruler. Well, seeing as how I haven't measured Bendis at all in this thread, you can't exactly say this, can you? Bendis isn't original, either, but I found that Whedon retreaded a lot of old ground when he was writing Astonishing X-Men. It's one thing to re-use story types and to recreate ideas already out there, but I felt that Whedon didn't execute it well. I don't think I can really compare Bendis originality with Avengers, because, honestly, I've only been reading the past 15ish of Avengers. I've got some back issues, but not many. X-Men, I am very well in tune with and I can pick out the "deja vu" moments in Whedon's run. Thanks for the assurance. So was there a page missing from my Giant-Sized Astonishing X-Men that revealed what happened to Danger and Cassandra Nova; revealed how Ord's people knew about Colossus; explained why no one could chase the bullet with a spaceship? Because I think I better go get a new copy of that issue so I can finally read that page! But let me reiterate my point: just because a writer has flaws doesn't make them lousy. I don't think Whedon is a lousy writer; I just felt that his work on Astonishing X-Men was not up to par. Since when is a writer only "good" or "bad?" Why can't they be "kinda good" or "somewhat mediocre" or "weak in some places?" The point I'm just trying to make is that Whedon is not so perfect when it comes to super-hero comics, as evidenced by his run on Astonishing X-Men. As for Bendis, I certainly have critized him and there are things about his run I've poo-pooed and things I've enjoyed. I'm not the Bendis worshiper you all think I am; I just try not to let the little crap bother me. Just like I did with Whedon. There are plenty of good things about his run that I liked. Am I writing this clearly enough? Is there something I'm saying that you guys just aren't understanding? Maybe I'm not. Let me be clear:
Joss Whedon, a writer and director with good credentials, wrote what I consider an "above average" run on Astonishing X-Men. I felt his villains were flat and his stories were ho-hum. I thought his characterization was excellent, his pacing was good, and his scripts were impactful. But there were too many lose ends and too many plot holes to convince me that he should be writing Avengers on a regular basis.
Joss Whedon should instead focus on telling his Avengers stories in a cinematic fashion, which is the medium that he is best suited for and has shown to strive in.
Comparing a movie by Whedon and a comic run by Bendis is like comparing all seven seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Different cast at different points of development, different production team, different story-telling techniques, and MOST OF ALL a different medium.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 3, 2012 1:41:18 GMT -5
lol, Bill and HB, it sounds like my bleu cheese analagy was perfect since the point of it was to choose something that doesn't appeal to ME at all but does appeal to others.
Here's my real problem with the whole direction this thread has gone in. Some time has been spent on intellegent debate concerning the merits of Bendis vs. Wheden but most of the time has not been dedicated to the topic, but rather to whether or not the topic should have been posted. That is a ridiculous thing to argue about. Any topic can fairly be posted. If I want to start threads on "Would JK Rowling have done a better job writing the Avengers movie than Wheden?" "Could Howard the Duck beat Superman in a fair fight?" or "If Stan Lee reversed in age like Benjamin Button, should he start writing the Avengers again?" I should be able to post them. Everyone could then choose to either say "No, Quack Foo could never hold up to laser vision," or simply ignore my post because they thought they were stupid. I could respect a good discusion (Which isn't likely to come from those topics) or be disappointed by the lack of response. What I don't think would be appropriate would be someone telling me I can't talk about these things.
Debate the issue or ignore the issue but don't whine about why the person shouldn't have raised it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 3, 2012 2:00:41 GMT -5
If I want to start threads on "Would JK Rowling have done a better job writing the Avengers movie than Wheden?" "Could Howard the Duck beat Superman in a fair fight?" .... Don't say "Howard the Duck"... Don't. Say. HOWARDTHEDUCK! If Bendis reaaly IS taking over the Guardians of the Galaxy, I guarantee his inclusion into the story. Rocket Raccoon... Howard the Duck... sitting at a table... bantering... Are we taking bets? Should we start a pool? How many issues in before HoDu's grand entrance? SHUDDER: verb; "To shiver convulsively, as from fear or revulsion" - you bite your tongue Meriam Webster
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 3, 2012 2:26:12 GMT -5
It's one thing to re-use story types and to recreate ideas already out there, but I felt that Whedon didn't execute it well. I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around your assessment of Astonishing. Especially in relation to your defense of Bendis on these boards the past few years. His team dynamic impressed me a great deal. His way of looking at the same thing, but from a different angle, the depth with which he considered the characters' actions and motives... For example, "Danger"... a concept/character that bores you. Their Danger Room computer becoming sentient was executed superbly. He constructed the drama so perfectly. It built from the Danger Room malfunctioning, to it seemingly under the control of an evil enemy, to the realization that IT itself was alive. And what did Emma Frost remark? It's a force that has only ever known violence. That struck me as extremely well thought out insight into the classical sci fi "awakened and evil robot" (that was used to train combat, i.e. violence). Whedon's character development, his dialogue, his pacing were in a class Bendis hasn't reached, my friend. And he did so consistently on a team oriented, super hero comic book. IF you've enjoyed Bendis on the Avengers, you'd enjoy Whedon on the Avengers (since you wouldn't recognize retreads and "already been there"s). If you didn't care for Whedon on the X-Men, since that's the franchise you're well versed in, then you'd probably hate Bendis on the X-Men. Bendis would do all of the negative things you mentioned, and you'd spot it all a mile away. I'll make you a deal, I'll reread Whedon's Astonishing from start to finish, and concede your points of loose ends if applicable (I'm willing to put down my reread of the "Howard the Duck Omnibus" to further our discussion (which isn't nearly as antagonistic as it seems)).
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2012 5:42:17 GMT -5
If I want to start threads on "Would JK Rowling have done a better job writing the Avengers movie than Wheden?" "Could Howard the Duck beat Superman in a fair fight?" .... Don't say "Howard the Duck"... Don't. Say. HOWARDTHEDUCK! If Bendis reaaly IS taking over the Guardians of the Galaxy, I guarantee his inclusion into the story. Rocket Raccoon... Howard the Duck... sitting at a table... bantering... Are we taking bets? Should we start a pool? How many issues in before HoDu's grand entrance? SHUDDER: verb; "To shiver convulsively, as from fear or revulsion" - you bite your tongue Meriam Webster Oh lordy, speak of the devil and he will etcetera. (Hmm-- not sure if "etcetera" can be used in a verb in any way, though. . . ). When's the last time Howard the D*mmph* (hand clamped over mouth) made an appearance? What's the time limit that they HAVE to use a character by, or they possibly lose the rights? Something like three years or so? Ohhh, this bodes ill, indeed. Especially since Frank Brunner and Gene Colan were the ONLY artists who could make him work visually. . . HB ("A Tangent Too Far")
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2012 6:20:58 GMT -5
BRBill & Woodside-- a couple of thoughts occur to me as I've been reading your part of this conversation---
- Whedon's one stint on an X-Men mini-series may actually be too small a sample to use to make a true assesment of his abilities as a group-book writer. If looked at as an audition, though, it certainly sounds like he has a ton of promise (I haven't read it, myself), with possibly an eye towards polishing some rough-edged plot handling.
- Marvel's tendency towards inexplicable plot turns and flailing loose ends is practically legendary (I'm reading through Marvel Team-Up right now---). Believe me, the standards were once much, much, MUCH lower than what's being described here.
- I know I ring this bell a lot, but this kind of perceived sloppiness and/or lack of clarity is at least as much- if not more- the responsibility of the editorial staff. It's their job to make sure the product is clean, clear and presentable. Had an editor stepped into the process at the appropriate time and said, "Joss, you've got some holes here you need to tweak-- see what you can fix w/ the dialog"-- that's where the problem's solved.
Ultimately, I would be STUNNED if Whedon were able to find time at all to take up writing a comic book at all at this point. One dearly, dearly hopes he'll be directing the next film. And one would assume that that process starts RIGHT NOW in one form or another. And one also had the sense that the first film absolutely clobbered him with its demands. Fitting in an ongoing comic series as well? For a guy with a wife & kids? For certainly a minor amount of financial recompense? I dunno-- I kind of feel like that would be almost irresponsible. I think I'd lose a bit of respect for the guy himself. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 3, 2012 13:11:01 GMT -5
Having been alerted about this thread, and having read through it all, it's fair to say a couple of messages came across more aggressive than they were (hopefully) meant to be. Time to take a step back and cool down a bit.
For my 2 cents, I think comic books should, first and foremost, entertain, regardless of plot holes. I don't like most of what Bendis writes because I don't feel entertained by it, but it's more of a problem with the modern way of writing comic books than with the guy himself. I'm equally bored by Hickman's FF or Fraction's Thor, whereas I feel entertained by AvX, Academy, Spider-Man, Cap, DD and a few others. On the other hand, I don't think Bendis is the worse thing that's ever happened to Marvel (thinks David Kraft's Defenders) or to Avengers (thinks Chuck Dixon)
I haven't read a single issue of Whedon's X-Men, so I don't know if I would like it. In the movie, he certainly got the balance between action and talking right and was faithful to everyone's cinematic characterization. Would he be so again on an Avengers book? No idea, but it would be interesting to find out.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jun 3, 2012 16:16:45 GMT -5
I hope my comments have not offended anyone. My dislike of BMB (and Marvel)'s treatment of the Avengers franchise should not be misconstrued as a dislike of my fellow Assemblers, regardless of their tastes. Hey, it's just comic books. Nevertheless, it's nice to know that someone out there is as passionate about the Avengers as I am.
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jun 4, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5
I hope my comments have not offended anyone. My dislike of BMB (and Marvel)'s treatment of the Avengers franchise should not be misconstrued as a dislike of my fellow Assemblers, regardless of their tastes. Hey, it's just comic books. Nevertheless, it's nice to know that someone out there is as passionate about the Avengers as I am. To be honest --- If you are someone who understands what made the Avengers great, you will get it. If you are a poser Avengers fan, or a fan of crap like Bendis writes, you won't get it. This really offended me. Just because I like what Bendis is writing (sometimes) doesn't mean I don't get what made the Avengers great. I love the Avengers. What makes them the Avengers is their strength, their honor, their fight-to-the-last-man no matter what attitude. It's also about people from all up and down the power scale, coming together to avenge those that can't avenge themselves and to protect humanity (and sometimes other worlds) from foes that no singular hero can withstand. Maybe I don't get it by your terms, but I certainly get it by mine. Back to Whedon. To clarify and offer my final thoughts about his Astonishing X-Men run and how it would effect his hypothetical run on Avengers. I felt his stories were flat, yes. There are some excellent emotional punches, but my criticism regarding some of his stories stand. Too many questions were left unanswered and it just didn't sit well with me since this was a self-contained story. That being said, it is notable that my biggest problems with Busiek's run on Avengers is that we are lacking in the big villains. None of the enemies the Avengers face between issue 4 and issue 15 tend to bring the weight of some of their heavy hitters. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as Busiek focuses nicely on the inter-team drama, but having some bigger bads would have helped him hit a home run for this first year. Not that it's a bad first year, but it could have been bigger and better with strong villains. So, I imagine Whedon's run would be similair to that, in that it would focus on characters and drama more than end of the world threats and big bad super-villains.
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 8, 2012 23:38:40 GMT -5
Woodside: “I felt his stories were flat, yes. There are some excellent emotional punches, but my criticism regarding some of his stories stand. Too many questions were left unanswered and it just didn't sit well with me since this was a self-contained story.”
Maybe you just weren’t in the right mood when you read them... Also, if you got them monthly, as opposed to reading them one after the other in graphic novel form (which is what I did). For every flaw there are a dozen gems.
I’ve been reading comics a long time, and have seen my share of clunkers (did I ever admit, openly, on these boards, that I OWN the entire Alpha Flight catalogue? Just me saying that may produce a peculiar Canadian stench).
I found Whedon’s X-Men to be clever, and engaging.
But, more to the point, we wrote a team dynamic that was crisp and clicking on all cylinders.
Your objections are plot holes and loose ends (according to some, those are staples of any Bendis story, by the way… since we’re Avengers fans who are comparing the two creators in this thread).
In my opinion, Cassandra Nova is the only one that might have traction, however, Whedon clearly had to wrap up his run in a hurry and wasn’t able to revisit that MOMENT at the HQ.
Everyone was kidnapped at the instant of conclusion… when Emma was either going to successfully thwart CassNo or succumb to her superiority. Why Ellis chose not to address this is his call since the reigns had been passed on to him.
Astonishing X is not a self contained story. It’s a part of the mainstream Marvel U. When creative teams take over they’re handed the baton and continue the franchise. Ask Warren about Cassady.
Ask the editors why Kitty couldn’t be saved. Whedon put her in an old school comic book “death” situation, which other writers could draw on if they chose. Fiction/Comics is about suspending disbelief, my friend. You accept many improbabilities every month (like, why do the Hulk’s pants always, and thankfully, stay on?).
Kitty’s plight was how I wish the MU would be. The storytelling has become too easy. Want an impossibly fast object that’s hurtling through the emptiness of space to be, simply, grabbed and boarded and the damsel saved? Ask Galactus to get out his catchers mitt and there you go (I think Magneto eventually grabbed it… ummmm, what?) Anyway, it is what it is.
In my opinion, Whedon has given his colleagues fertile ground with which to build on, not “written sloppy stories”, to paraphrase you.
When Bendis leaves the Avengers, incoming creators will be building on top of the 150 or so issues he’s produced (or not… I say that because the man himself hasn’t exactly respected what those before him established. He is, in my assessment, a chronic retconner… )
The difference is Whedon produced, in a MUCH shorter run, a marvelously constructed adventure, while, again, in my opinion, BMB made an NBC’s Friends version of the Avengers (example: the latest volume of “Avengers”, #13… possibly the worst Avengers issue I’ve ever read. Worse, even, than Alpha Flight’s “Team Canada” debacle.)
Bottom line for me: Whedon writes team dynamics extremely well, whether it’s on the big screen, television, comic books or cocktail napkins. Bendis does not.
Thanks for listening, and sharing your opinions, too.
P.S. Issues 15, 16 & 17 made my day, and then some!
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Sept 6, 2012 17:31:38 GMT -5
In my opinion, Whedon's biggest success in this movie was giving proper attention to every team member, both individually and in their pairings. No one member out-shined the other, which, to be fair to who the team members are, is a great accomplishment. Hawkeye and Widow could have easily been shunted to the background given their lack of powers, instead, Whedon shows their depth of their relationship which makes me want a Hawkeye & Widow solo movie.
I've read his Astonishing X-Men arc and enjoyed it for the most part. Whedon's tendency is to focus the story through the eyes of a young female protagonist, in this case, Kitty Pryde. The resolution to the overall storyline with her may have had plot holes in it, but what story doesn't? Whedon was terrific in his characterizations and emotional bonds. I may not agree with Peter's return (I hate the Comic Revolving Door of Death) but seeing Kitty's reaction to it was worth it.
As for Bendis, I don't think of him as a hack. The man has talent as a writer else he wouldn't have lasted this long. He accomplished the nigh impossible by moving the Avengers ahead of the X-Men as Marvel's premiere franchise.
What I do think is that Bendis is over hyped, stick his name on any book and it'll sell. (Geoff Johns falls into the same boat). Sad but true, but that can lead to a type of lethargy in your story-telling, which may be the case now given his long tenure with the Avengers.
Now, over the years, I've tried reading various works by Bendis but none really appeal to me. I've tried at various times with his Avengers titles, but nothing settled well with me. Despite being a huge Daredevil fan, I can't seem to bring myself to read any of his work on the title after reading so many comments elsewhere about his ignoring various canon issues. Siege was decent, but the best work by him I've read is Ultimate Spider-Man. Given a fresh slate, he's rebuilt a new, fresher Peter Parker, which both illustrates what I like and dislike about his writing style.
I don't like his decompressed storytelling (he takes 2 pages to do something that Lee or Thomas would do in 2 panels) and his dialogue can be grating to me sometimes. What would sound normal coming from a teenage Peter sounds off when heard from Cap or Hawkeye. His dialogue tries to sound witty but comes off as snarky sometimes, like something better found in a fan-fic.
That's my tastes though. If you enjoy Bendis, fine. I don't. He's been the main reason I've stayed away from the Avengers for over a decade. With his departure, I'm excited for the team again. Every news report and interview I've read so far would suggest both Hickman and Rememder are excited for their respective books so I can't wait to see what they have planned.
Of course, now, I'm hesitant over how Bendis will handle the X-Men.......
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Sept 6, 2012 17:45:00 GMT -5
Hickman's FF I've actually enjoyed more than I expected to, so I'm cautiously optimistic. Remender is a good solid writer who sometimes writes stuff I like a lot, but who can be a bit too...well, dark. A bit too much killing to add weight in some stories. But overall, here too I have some optimism. But then basically anyone but Bendis would please me at this point, such is my prejudice..
|
|
|
Post by RogerTew on Sept 19, 2020 17:39:06 GMT -5
<a href=https://optimize.google.com/optimize/sharepreview/?id=OPT-KRZ64PS>m_experiment=OPT-KRZ64PS_OPT-WX6R9$0&url=http://hack-faq.ru/>Раздачи аккаунтов, баз, дампы, софт, ПО. Обучение, помощь новичкам. Присоединяйся к нам по ссылке кликай</a>
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele on Mar 26, 2024 2:06:09 GMT -5
|
|