|
|
Post by starfoxxx on May 18, 2014 12:53:34 GMT -5
I thought I'd just write about some Avengers back issues I recently picked up in the 50-cent bin to fill in my collection.
I picked up Avengers vol. 1 #370 and vol. 2 #'s 15, 65,73,78,79, and 84.
First off, #370. What a crappy issue, it was actually on my "list" to find because it has the UCWF in it (I really liked this combo of pro wrestling and super-powers from Capt. America and the Thing series).
Well, the UCWF is barely in here, and the super-wrestler EL TORO ROJO is sooooo lame, I'd rather not even discuss him. And the super-villain group "Delta Force" (how original...) may be one of the lamest ever.
I realize Glen Herdling was filling in writing duties for Bob Harras, but this is just bad. The art was sloppy but not terrible. I can't stand the super-saturated colors of the mid-90s Marvel books.
Now when I read the volume 2 issues, I think back to when I joined the AA boards in 2007, and the general feelings towards writers Johns and Austen were pretty bad-----but I found these to be pretty enjoyable reading-especially compared to what Marvel is offering in 2014! I liked Johns' Red Zone arc, and the Search for She-Hulk arc was okay, too. I'm not a fan of Scott Kolins art, though. Oliver Coipel, on the other hand, did a pretty nice job. I didn't think Chuck Austen's writing was as good as John's. as he didn't seem to have a firm grasp of the characterization, and kind of took privileges with the characters to create a "soap opera". Not that that writing technique has not been used before by Avengers' writers, it just didn't work here. But in general, while this era of Avengers comics was no where near an example of the best----these stories were ALOT better than the mid-90s and current Avengers books, IMHO. At least it felt like you were reading an AVENGERS title.
Oh and #15 (Busiek and Perez) is pretty good. Busiek's characters are great, and Perez is perfect (of course), but the Triathlon/Lord Templar arc was pretty weak. Still, one of my favorite creative teams, and I wish these two were still ivolved with the Avengers.
Also, one of the ads (from 2004) is for a movie called The Perfect Score---featuring Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansenn! I wonder if they hit it off making this film, because I thought their chemistry in Cap/Winter Soldier was top-notch!
|
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on May 21, 2014 13:11:19 GMT -5
Also, one of the ads (from 2004) is for a movie called The Perfect Score---featuring Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansenn! I wonder if they hit it off making this film, because I thought their chemistry in Cap/Winter Soldier was top-notch! Second that! The fact that they had such great interactions and the script didn't force them into the romance box was a major strength of that movie. I don't know these issues, but weren't they volume 3? I thought the 13 issues in the pocket universe were considered v.2. Not that numbering is my strong suit, or that Marvel makes it easy. |
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on May 21, 2014 15:19:44 GMT -5
I don't know these issues, but weren't they volume 3? I thought the 13 issues in the pocket universe were considered v.2. You are correct, the Busiek/Perez Avengers began Volume 3. But who REALLY considers Volume 2 part of the Avengers history. I like the term wundagoreborn used---"pocket universe"----a good description of the vomit-inducing Volume 2, ha-ha! Maybe one day Bendis' run will be considered "pocket universe" material-----<<<boo, hisssssss, I know, I deserve whatever is flung at me!!! Serves me right for mentioning He-Who-I-Promised-Never-To-Mention-On-AA-Boards!!!!!>>> In his defense, Hickman's run is just as bad, IMO, and probably worse in terms of just being BORING! <<<Okay, let me have it!!! Any response will be welcome, considering how dead it's been around here!>>> |
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on May 31, 2014 19:24:15 GMT -5
Just so I know what volume you are referring to, for example is this the #79 you are discussing?  Ugh, Chuck Austen. I've yet to read anything by him that I liked. His work on X-Men and Superman was equally atrocious. At least Bendis writes a decent story every so often. Odd though, considering how much of his DC work I've read and enjoyed, I've never read any of Johns' work on the Avengers. What were some of the issues that other members had with his work? |
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jun 1, 2014 13:30:02 GMT -5
Yes, that's it, Volume 3.
Like I said, that Heroes Reborn garbage, that just screwed up the numbering system of the great Marvel titles.....
I guess Busiek and Perez were a pretty tough act to follow.
Busiek>>> writer, Volume 3 #1-56 except #16-18 (I wonder why the hiatus?)
Perez >>> artist, Volume 3 #1-34 except a few issues, and replaced by Alan Davis (!)
>>>>>>> Some Volume 3 SPOILERS!!! >>>>>
Geoff Johns >>> writer, Volume 3 #57-76
As far as Johns' run, I have to give him credit for not shrinking from terroristic plotlines in a post 9/11 Marvel Universe.
The "World Trust" arc has a classic line-up and gives Cap and the Assemblers more diplomatic power (and responsibility)than ever before. Several world capitols are "disappearing".
That creep Gyrich is re-introduced, and the Avengers battle Scorpio and "the In-Betweener" (I never liked that character/entity). Johns also brings in the second Ant-man (interesting addition) and Jack of Hearts (sorry, poor choice, IMO. I NEVER liked Jack of Hearts, or felt sorry for his "time-out" sessions he had to endure. Hey, bring a couple magazines or a TV in that Zero-Zone isolation booth with you, dude). Johns also has a one-and-done Vegas adventure with Hank and Jan (okay, I have NO idea why writers want to keep revisiting this FAILED relationship...another poor choice by Johns, IMO.)
Johns pits Iron Man vs Thor (classic in-fighting between members). This is followed by the aforementioned "Red Zone" arc (I liked this story, although the "surprise" villain is soooo telegraphed). Then it's the "Search for She-Hulk" arc, where Shulkie goes nuts (another well-known plot device). This arc would have been better served by another artist, as I'm not a fan of Scott Kolins' cartoony style.
Chuck Austen >>> writer, Volume 3 #77-84
Austen's run is marred by bad characterizations and the dumb "Lionheart of Avalon" arc that introduced the female Capt Britain/Lionheart. At least this arc featured my favorite villains, the ol' Wrecking Crew! And Coipel's art is nice. The next arc "Once and Invader" was okay, but again, ruined by Kolins' art, IMHO.
Then Bendis "Disassembled" my beloved Avengers........
|
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 3, 2014 7:50:40 GMT -5
Hm, interesting. How was the level of violence in Johns' run? That was one element that sort of put me off his later work at DC. For the scale of violence just shot through the roof. From Black Adam ripping people's arms off to that full page spread of Black Hand shooting himself in the head at his family's dinner table (not really something I wanted to see for 4 bucks). I know we are dealing with super-powered heroes but sometimes he took it too far for my tastes.
As for Austen, we may complain about Bendis' shoddy characterization but Austen has him beat. Bad characterizations and his dialogue is the worst. The female Capt. Britain/Lionheart sounds interesting, at least in a better writer's hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2014 9:25:25 GMT -5
Hm, interesting. How was the level of violence in Johns' run? That was one element that sort of put me off his later work at DC. For the scale of violence just shot through the roof. From Black Adam ripping people's arms off to that full page spread of Black Hand shooting himself in the head at his family's dinner table (not really something I wanted to see for 4 bucks). I know we are dealing with super-powered heroes but sometimes he took it too far for my tastes. As for Austen, we may complain about Bendis' shoddy characterization but Austen has him beat. Bad characterizations and his dialogue is the worst. The female Capt. Britain/Lionheart sounds interesting, at least in a better writer's hands. I know I've said it 'round here before, but I'll give it a repeat anyhoo: The central issue of the (overly-decompressed) origin sequence for Lionheart was almost an impossibly moving dark gem of writing. Comics don't often bring me to tears-- and that issue completely did. Poor, damaged Kelsey's horrific efforts to keep Thunderball off of Cap & Jan at the cost, ultimately, of her own life make for about as harrowing a thread as one can imagine, and somehow the writing manages to have conviction, empathy, and solid pacing. For that issue. Next issue we get an inane Anglo/mystical intervention with COMPLETELY outdated personal "superhero limitations" put upon the character that bordered dangerously on being comically unworkable and unbelievable. It involved Kelsey's kids, and one would assume that the writer had no children of his own from the way it was handled. But, to be fair, it looked like even that foolishness was on the verge of being backtracked when, yes, all ongoing storylines were thrown into the DisAssembled grinder w/out so much as a Howdy-Do or Have An Apple. . . Your point is still valid, though, Marv. I had a teacher who once assured us that an artist is always truly as good as their best work, even when they may often be judged by or criticized for their worst. Bendis' best probably far outshines Austen's (I'm thinking the first several years of Ultimate Spiderman), whereas their worst(s) may be comparable. HB |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 3, 2014 18:53:53 GMT -5
Just so I know what volume you are referring to, for example is this the #79 you are discussing? OMG, Avengers #79 vol. 3 was the first comic I bought since...Avengers #105, vol. 1. Yep, I'd been away from comics for a loooongg time!  |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 3, 2014 18:59:30 GMT -5
But who REALLY considers Volume 2 part of the Avengers history. I like the term wundagoreborn used---"pocket universe"----a good description of the vomit-inducing Volume 2, ha-ha! When the Avengers, FF and others all seemingly died fighting Onslaught, it was later revealed that the heroes had actually been shunted to a pocket universe created by our friend Franklin Richards. This is how Marvel explained the volume 2 reboot-debacles. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 3, 2014 19:06:30 GMT -5
...the Search for She-Hulk arc was okay, too. I'm not a fan of Scott Kolins art, though. Kolins's art in this particular arc was hard for me to look at--I don't know how to explain it other than it seemed somewhat creepy. |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2014 21:24:21 GMT -5
...the Search for She-Hulk arc was okay, too. I'm not a fan of Scott Kolins art, though. Kolins's art in this particular arc was hard for me to look at--I don't know how to explain it other than it seemed somewhat creepy. It really is hard to figure out exactly why his style is so off-putting--- 'cause I totally agree that it is. He doesn't seem to do any shading at all with his pencils, IIRC-- every single detail has a sharp, thin outline. And EVERY SINGLE LINE is the same thickness-- like he's drawing with a very fine-point pen for absolutely everything. He doesn't have any eye at all for the visual aesthetics that are really a necessary convention for this medium either. HBWife recently picked up a remaindered copy of HOW TO DRAW COMICS THE MARVEL WAY for HBSon (for $4!!!), and naturally John Buscema clearly demonstrates exactly how and and why you alter proportions and dynamics and anatomy to some degree to suit comic-book story-telling. Kolins doesn't get that at all. Honestly, his drawings bear an uncanny resemblance to these drawing exercises we did in 8th & 9th grade where you drew a picture in pen, but never lifted it up from the paper the entire time--- one loooooong unbroken line w/ lots of scribbly places. That's what it looks like. HB |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 4, 2014 20:33:01 GMT -5
Kolins's art in this particular arc was hard for me to look at--I don't know how to explain it other than it seemed somewhat creepy. It really is hard to figure out exactly why his style is so off-putting--- 'cause I totally agree that it is. He doesn't seem to do any shading at all with his pencils, IIRC-- every single detail has a sharp, thin outline. And EVERY SINGLE LINE is the same thickness-- like he's drawing with a very fine-point pen for absolutely everything. He doesn't have any eye at all for the visual aesthetics that are really a necessary convention for this medium either. HBWife recently picked up a remaindered copy of HOW TO DRAW COMICS THE MARVEL WAY for HBSon (for $4!!!), and naturally John Buscema clearly demonstrates exactly how and and why you alter proportions and dynamics and anatomy to some degree to suit comic-book story-telling. Kolins doesn't get that at all. Honestly, his drawings bear an uncanny resemblance to these drawing exercises we did in 8th & 9th grade where you drew a picture in pen, but never lifted it up from the paper the entire time--- one loooooong unbroken line w/ lots of scribbly places. That's what it looks like. HB That's an excellent description, HB. What turned me off most of all was Kolins's use of lines (sans shadows or blacks, as you said) to indicate musculature, veiny skin, costume fabric bagging/wrinkles(?),and so on. The effect was very--I'll have to use this word again--creepy to me. IMO She-Hulk looked especially grotesque. Now, perhaps that was a deliberate artistic choice on Kolins's part, given the unrelentingly dark nature of the overall story and Jen's predicament in particular. But the art gave me a sickening feeling so it was really hard for me to get into the story. I did like Kolins's (later) work better in Earth's Mightiest Heroes vol.1, especially his Hawkeye, Wanda, and Pietro. In that EMH series there's a panel of Pietro disembarking a plane and meeting Tony Stark that is one of my favorite pictures ever of Pietro. In that panel Kolins captured Pietro's handsome haughtiness perfectly! |
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jun 5, 2014 7:16:48 GMT -5
Hm, interesting. How was the level of violence in Johns' run? That was one element that sort of put me off his later work at DC. For the scale of violence just shot through the roof. From Black Adam ripping people's arms off to that full page spread of Black Hand shooting himself in the head at his family's dinner table (not really something I wanted to see for 4 bucks). I know we are dealing with super-powered heroes but sometimes he took it too far for my tastes. As for Austen, we may complain about Bendis' shoddy characterization but Austen has him beat. Bad characterizations and his dialogue is the worst. The female Capt. Britain/Lionheart sounds interesting, at least in a better writer's hands. I know I've said it 'round here before, but I'll give it a repeat anyhoo: The central issue of the (overly-decompressed) origin sequence for Lionheart was almost an impossibly moving dark gem of writing. Comics don't often bring me to tears-- and that issue completely did. Poor, damaged Kelsey's horrific efforts to keep Thunderball off of Cap & Jan at the cost, ultimately, of her own life make for about as harrowing a thread as one can imagine, and somehow the writing manages to have conviction, empathy, and solid pacing. For that issue. Next issue we get an inane Anglo/mystical intervention with COMPLETELY outdated personal "superhero limitations" put upon the character that bordered dangerously on being comically unworkable and unbelievable. It involved Kelsey's kids, and one would assume that the writer had no children of his own from the way it was handled. But, to be fair, it looked like even that foolishness was on the verge of being backtracked when, yes, all ongoing storylines were thrown into the DisAssembled grinder w/out so much as a Howdy-Do or Have An Apple. . . Your point is still valid, though, Marv. I had a teacher who once assured us that an artist is always truly as good as their best work, even when they may often be judged by or criticized for their worst. Bendis' best probably far outshines Austen's (I'm thinking the first several years of Ultimate Spiderman), whereas their worst(s) may be comparable. HB Wow, ok, which issue was the central issue? Admittedly, I've only seen Kolins' work on the Flash (oddly enough alongside Johns). I find his style to be unique and I do quite like it. I think whomever is inking his work also plays a factor in my enjoyment of his work. If memory serves, I think he also did some work on the original Annihilation mini which my brother lent to me to read awhile back. His linework did seem heavier then so that was a tad off-putting but I still enjoyed his art for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2014 21:16:41 GMT -5
Wow, ok, which issue was the central issue? Admittedly, I've only seen Kolins' work on the Flash (oddly enough alongside Johns). I find his style to be unique and I do quite like it. I think whomever is inking his work also plays a factor in my enjoyment of his work. If memory serves, I think he also did some work on the original Annihilation mini which my brother lent to me to read awhile back. His linework did seem heavier then so that was a tad off-putting but I still enjoyed his art for the most part. Oh man, I'm looking at a cover gallery in hopes of refreshing my memory, and of course that's pointless because covers had already ceased being anything other than pin-up shots w/ little-to-no contextual bearing anymore. My best guess is that it's the 2nd or 3rd issue of the LIONHEART OF AVALON arc. . . so probably vol III; #78 or 79. I think. (I. . . I just can't work up the nerve to try to find it in the mess of the comic book room at this point. Please forgive me-!  ) HB |
|
)