|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 12, 2007 17:13:55 GMT -5
How do you rate Mantis as an avenger, on a scale from 1 to 8 points?
How well does she work for you within the team's dynamics?
How much do you like/dislike her as a character?
|
|
|
|
Post by rosecarver on Dec 12, 2007 18:35:40 GMT -5
Have to go with a 1 here. I can barely tolerate her in Annhilation.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 12, 2007 21:47:19 GMT -5
Two, just because of Celestial Madonna.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Dec 13, 2007 6:55:35 GMT -5
I had to debate this one out in my head a bit. Should it be a one or a two? Her involvement in the Celestial Madonna storyline was moving me toward two but then her involvement in the Crossing cancelled that out. In the end, I simply asked myself "Would I ever like to see her return to the Avengers?" The answer clarified things. One.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 13, 2007 7:56:32 GMT -5
I had to debate this one out in my head a bit. Should it be a one or a two? Her involvement in the Celestial Madonna storyline was moving me toward two but then her involvement in the Crossing cancelled that out. In the end, I simply asked myself "Would I ever like to see her return to the Avengers?" The answer clarified things. One. Spiderwasp: you're either forgetting or you never read Avengers Forever... It was retconned (explained...?) there that the Mantis we saw during "The Crossing" was actually... no, not a skrull...!!! A space phantom...!  I must say that, as much as I loved Avengers Forever, the revelation that the Kang and allies who appeared during "The Crossing" were actually Immortus and a bunch of space phantoms sounds totally like crap to me...! If you ever take the time to reread it (and I can completely understand those of you who can't bear to do so...) you'll find a scene where Kang joins his eldest son in a rigorous combat training session, and only the 2 of them are present. At the end of it, Kang berates his son for being too soft, and unprepared to be a fit heir to him... Well, if they actually were Immortus and a space phantom, why in hell will they keep on pretending under such circunstances, with nobody to fool around...?  What, were they believers in method acting...? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Dec 13, 2007 10:46:32 GMT -5
I harbor a particularly intense and personal loathing for Mantis, in part because Englehart insists on dragging her around to appear in every series he writes. Which is too bad; otherwise, I like Englehart's writing, but the knowledge that he's going to once again forcefeed his personal bimbo down everyone's throat makes me anxious whenever I hear he's writing something.
Argh, I hate this stupid non-character. Her usefulness as a plot device in the Celestial Madonna doesn't get her any extra points from me. If I could give her a negative score, I would do so to counteract everyone else's positive votes, leaving her in the void where she belongs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 13, 2007 11:14:29 GMT -5
Wow, Scott, tell us you feel!!
I am voting a two, simply because I feel she never got a chance beyond the Celestial Madonna to evolve. I have never read Avengers: Celestial Quest, but have read the summaries on Englehart's own website. I know how some of you feel about writers and their "pet characters". Bendis would be example numero uno, to be sure!!
As far as her skills, her personality, her penchant for creating havoc among other team members -- that's why she gets a 2. While I hold the Celestial Madonna story high on my list, I can also see others' dislike of her as a character.
EDIT: grammar
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Dec 13, 2007 11:49:43 GMT -5
Spiderwasp: you're either forgetting or you never read Avengers Forever... It was retconned (explained...?) there that the Mantis we saw during "The Crossing" was actually... no, not a skrull...!!! A space phantom...! Hmmm. This one did read Avengers Forever but forgot that little detail. This one guesses that moves her up from a 1 to a 1.4. That still rounds down to a 1 so I guess it doesn't matter that this one can't change his vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Dec 13, 2007 12:08:55 GMT -5
She was sort of a distraction during her original Englehart appearances. Has almost nothing to offer the team. But ... she was a prominent part of some classic stories that I liked a lot. So, a two. I would not want her to rejoin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 13, 2007 16:24:07 GMT -5
I went out of the 1/2 routine and gave Mantis a 4. I think she added something to the team, not in terms of power or things like that, but because of the impact she had on Vision, Wanda and their relationship. To put it simply, if I take, say, Falcon out of the Avengers, nothing changes, but if I take Mantis, we may have had a different Vision for a while.
Also, I like the way she speaks in third person ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 13, 2007 17:25:39 GMT -5
EIGHT! MAN-TIS! MAN-TIS! MAN-TIS! MAN-TIS! MAN-TIS! ...Wait, you mean MANTIS, not giant sized Man-Thing? Oh, okay then, a two.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Dec 13, 2007 21:48:07 GMT -5
please,.. I beg of thee
start giving a '0' option
Mantis is THE WORST thing to happen to the Avengers short of Bendis/Yu
0
0
0
0
ZER)
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 13, 2007 21:52:24 GMT -5
;D This one was waiting for you to pop up & share your dim view & scalding opinion on Mantis, Nutcase...!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 13, 2007 21:56:02 GMT -5
For me, a 2...
I kinda like her, but I cannot give her any more points because, especially now that she belongs to the Marvel Cosmic Club, I don't think she's a good fit for the Avengers and thus I don't see her as a member again for the forseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Dec 14, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
Mantis gets a 1. I admit I'm a Mantis hater. She just gets worse with each appearance, for me. I wonder how a mysterious Vietnameses character was received during the early 70's, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 14, 2007 18:18:23 GMT -5
I know how some of you feel about writers and their "pet characters". Bendis would example numero uno, to be sure!! If I may interject, Bendis hasn't introduced any original characters into the Avengers. Ronin turned out to be Hawkeye and Echo, respectively. Ares was revisioned by Omeng, Sentry created by Paul Jenkins, etc. Also, if I may, there is the matter of Busiek and his nutty kids, Silverclaw and Triathilon. I can't wait until we get to those polls! |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Dec 14, 2007 21:27:05 GMT -5
;D This one was waiting for you to pop up & share your dim view & scalding opinion on Mantis, Nutcase...! I KNEW IT!!!! I said to myself "Bong sees me popping in and out and he is just putting this softball up for me to swat" I am sooooooooo easy  |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Dec 15, 2007 6:30:26 GMT -5
I have never seen the big problem with either inventing new characters for the Avengers, or bringing in old favourites. Isn't that EXACTLY what Stan Lee did both to make new Avengers *and* to bring in Captain America because he was an old character Stan liked?
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Dec 15, 2007 8:07:44 GMT -5
I have never seen the big problem with either inventing new characters for the Avengers, or bringing in old favourites. Isn't that EXACTLY what Stan Lee did both to make new Avengers *and* to bring in Captain America because he was an old character Stan liked? I actually agree with you. The changing roster of the Avengers has always been a plus and the new blood has worked often. I think it just needs to be done smoothly and without harming the team (Which is where I think Bendis dropped the ball.) Even when Stan did his major shake-up in #16, the original members simply took leaves of absence and start showing back up within 10 issues. Besides the disruption was only of a book with a 16 issue run, not 400+. As far as new characters like Triathalon, Silver Claw, Mantis, Gilgamesh, etc. that just didn't work well, at least they didn't take over the book and become the center of attention for years at the expense of the established characters. I may not rank them highly but if writers didn't experiment a little, we also wouldn't have had many characters that I really liked that were suddenly introduced to the team; Black Panther, Vision, Photon (Pulsar, whatever), Ms. Marvel, etc. I'm sure some among us do indeed object to the concept in general. I don't. I just didn't like the way it was handled in one particular incident that has had unusually long-lasting effects. |
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Dec 15, 2007 12:31:51 GMT -5
I have never seen the big problem with either inventing new characters for the Avengers, or bringing in old favourites. Isn't that EXACTLY what Stan Lee did both to make new Avengers *and* to bring in Captain America because he was an old character Stan liked? I think it just needs to be done smoothly and without harming the team Mantis had two major problems as far as how Englehart introduced her to the team. Firstly, she became the center of attention and the center of the plotting as soon as she joined the team, taking away the focus from established characters that people care about; and secondly, it was done in that most irritating of comic book fashions, where the writer so wants to impress the readers with how cool his character is that he has her basically defeat the entire team when she first appears. I loathe that convention. It doesn't make a new character look cool -- it makes both the character and the writer seem desperate and silly. I don't have a problem with bringing on new characters, but it's nice if they a) aren't irritating and b) don't dominate the entire book from out of nowhere. Compare the heavy-handed Mantis bomb in #114 with the gradual development of Captain Marvel starting in #227. It takes Stern over fifty issues to bring CM, his pet character, along to the point where she's the team leader. It takes Englehart one issue to establish Mantis as th new straw that stirs the drink. Mantis also had the unfortunate habit of talking in the third person, apparently thinking she was joining the Lakers and not the Avengers. Among other faults. |
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Dec 15, 2007 17:00:31 GMT -5
I grudgingly gave Mantis three points. Not because I like the character - I can't stand her. But because she was a useful plot point for a period of time. I would agree with Scott and others that Englehart was far too enamored with her and allowed her to take on too big a role in the book.
And I could never get past the ridiculousness of Mantis taking the God of Thunder down with a friggin' nerve block.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 15, 2007 17:27:46 GMT -5
I know how some of you feel about writers and their "pet characters". Bendis would example numero uno, to be sure!! If I may interject, Bendis hasn't introduced any original characters into the Avengers. Ronin turned out to be Hawkeye and Echo, respectively. Ares was revisioned by Omeng, Sentry created by Paul Jenkins, etc. Also, if I may, there is the matter of Busiek and his nutty kids, Silverclaw and Triathilon. I can't wait until we get to those polls! I didn't say anything about introducing pet characters -- I said using pet characters. There's a difference. However, as Scott has said, shoving characters down our throats just because the writer likes them is somewhat unethical in that it betrays the greater team as well as the history of said team. So giving me a force-feeding of Luke Cage, Spider-Woman, and whatever-the-heck you want to call the man-suit -- it just got tired VERY quickly. That's all. And yes, I can comment negatively on the two Busiek examples you cited. Unlike others (and we're all entitled to our opinion), I liked, not loved, the Busiek run. It's shine comes from the fact that it was good out of a very dark and prolonged period in Avengerdom. |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 15, 2007 19:26:10 GMT -5
My apologies if my response came off as aggressive, Doug. It wasn't supposed to be. I thought you had meant a writer's original characters, not favorites.
In which case, I'll definetly agree with you on Bendis' force-feeding. I like Luke Cage, Spider-Woman, etc., but even I would contend that their time in the spotlight has been rather forceful - dwarving more Avengers-esque characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 16, 2007 19:59:42 GMT -5
My apologies if my response came off as aggressive, Doug. It wasn't supposed to be. I thought you had meant a writer's original characters, not favorites. No offense taken -- just clarifying  . I think all writers have their characters that they push on us, and I suppose that's what distinguishes a run. Although it's been 40 years, think what the Avengers' history would be like if Roy hadn't pushed the Vision way back when... So along the way there is good and bad. I personally don't have the aversion to Mantis that some apparently have, but I think it's telling that no other author save Englehart thought enough of her to further explore the possibilities. That being said, when some tried to, Englehart went and did some retconning to "fix" her as he'd wanted to see her story evolve. |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 16, 2007 20:55:14 GMT -5
As an aside, what's this regarding Mantis crossing over into the DC and Eclipse universes?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Dec 17, 2007 2:23:39 GMT -5
As an aside, what's this regarding Mantis crossing over into the DC and Eclipse universes? From wikipedia: |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Dec 17, 2007 8:35:44 GMT -5
Wiki is where I got the information. I was just really surprised, I guess. I've never heard of such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Dec 19, 2007 11:52:58 GMT -5
Mantis is a good example of what happens when a creator begins to obsess on a character (particularly one that no one else seems to find all that compelling). I know Englehart also brought her back for Fantastic Four, and I read most of the Celestial Quest, which was pretty much a waste of time. I also had those JLA issues that Willow appeared in - again, just not that interesting. It's hard to figure out why he feels so driven to continue writing about this particular character.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Dec 19, 2007 17:28:07 GMT -5
In Englehart's defense, except for her initial appearance and the obligatory fight with the Avengers (#114), the Mantis saturation really began after the Avengers-Defenders War; but then, yes, I agree with everyone.... it was non-stop Mantis/Swordsman. If Englehart merely wanted to stir up the Vision-Wanda romance, he could have had, say, the Enchantress join--she had a history with the Avengers, was especially competitive with Wanda already (mostly because of Hercules in Avengers Annual #1) and she knew the Swordsman (again, Annual #1). Also, she knew Wonder Man (#9) and so she might have latched onto the Vision because of that. But I guess Englehart had more in mind than just using her as a complication in a love story, because he also used her to explore themes such as finding one's true identity, one's place in the world, etc. (No, I did not mean "this one's." ) And after all this time it's interesting that when many of us think of her, the basic thing that stands out is her "this one" dialogue... ;D ...what a legacy! As for the poll: I voted 1 for her; she was integral to the Celestial Madonna arc of course, but apart from that she has never held much interest for me as a character. I wonder how a mysterious Vietnamese character was received during the early 70's, though. Great point, Starfoxxx! *Exalts* I have wondered that myself... You'd think there would be some reaction to having a prominent Vietnamese character, but surprisingly (to me), this was not reflected in the Avengers letter columns of that time. Perhaps Marvel didn't want to incite anyone by printing letters about that aspect (though Stan had never shied away from mentioning the Vietnam War in the Bullpen Bulletins/Soapboxes). But about Mantis specifically, it seems most letters (that were printed, anyway) just commented on the Swordsman-Mantis-Vision-Wanda love story/problems, what a troublemaker Mantis was, how "mysterious" she was, etc. Maybe in FOOM there was some commentary/feedback at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Dec 29, 2007 14:43:25 GMT -5
I enjoy the parallels in comic books (as well as all forms of art) to the history at the time of the books creation. That's why I would rather dig through the dollar bins for old comics rather than buy collections or reprints. The letter pages and advertisements are sometimes my favorite parts!
|
|
What, were they believers in method acting...? ;D
.