|
Post by Black Knight on May 4, 2006 13:32:06 GMT -5
I don't know if this counts as a continuity glitch, but just some of the dialogue is silly. An example I used above (think it was in this thread) was when Cap says, in regard to Michael (which by the way would have been WAY COOLER if it had really turned out to be Korvac) "We've never faced anything like this before!" I'm paraphrasing, to be sure. Anyway, I just found it ignorant that in all these years Cap would say something like that. Some of the banter is OK; some of it is annoying. To me the banter reads like a OC or Party of Five script. Bendis has the heros talking like they are a bunch of teens or early 20's. Unfortuantly for Bendis IM is in his early 30's and Cap comes from the bloody 40's. THere is a serious lack of action in this comic, it is filled with dialogue that does not move the plot, and a lot of pretty pictures that look exactly alike. As for other things that Bendis ignored continuum on, well you have Jan as a drunken idiot, Hawkeye as a insenstive ass to a girl he use to like. Personally I think a lot of people are suffering from the "frog in a boiling pot" syndrome. If we had not had the god awful Austen run right before Disassembled and NA, would as many people feel this was a good comic, or would they see it as just another version of Heroes Reborn.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 4, 2006 13:57:02 GMT -5
I am still sensing a generation gap on this topic between the over-30 crowd and the under-30 crowd. Of course, during the counterculture years they said not to trust anyone over 30... Anyone remember that great sci-fi flick "Logan's Run"? Everyone over 30 got killed. Maybe I AM full of crap...
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 4, 2006 14:25:06 GMT -5
I am still sensing a generation gap on this topic between the over-30 crowd and the under-30 crowd. Of course, during the counterculture years they said not to trust anyone over 30... Anyone remember that great sci-fi flick "Logan's Run"? Everyone over 30 got killed. Maybe I AM full of crap... I do remember Logan's Run, good show. Anyway, I actually did a little study on just what you are talking about, and found that the majority of readers who like NA where 15-25 years old, and had only been reading comics an avg. of 5 years. The majority of people who disliked NA 30 and up, and had been reading comics for 10+ years. They age range of 25-30 seemed to just be a crap shoot. I don't know what that says, and I know there are exceptions, but there you go. Remember this study, was based on internet boards.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 4, 2006 14:27:56 GMT -5
BK --
You get an EXALT for your efforts. Nice job.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 4, 2006 15:51:35 GMT -5
BK -- You get an EXALT for your efforts. Nice job. Now if I could just do something with that Karma.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 4, 2006 16:32:17 GMT -5
dlw66 is right. You DO get an exhalt for doing that research. And despite the fact that I've been reading comics for 14 years, I'd say your research is pretty on the level (as I've only been reading Avengers for 6-7ish years).
I'll concede to you, dlw66, that SOME of the dialogue is just not consistent with the characters. But I think this is a problem that's slowly going away.
I remember reading "Avengers Disassembled" when Cap, Iron Man, Hawkeye, and Pym were all standing outside the hospital, talking about what was happening. It all came off as unprofessional and uncharacteristic. But like I said, this is a problem that I think is slowly going away . . .
~W~
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 4, 2006 20:23:04 GMT -5
I hope you're right. I really, really like the Avengers -- I have since I fell in love with a reprint of Avengers #20 when I was around 6 years old (1972). And I really, really want to like them in this current incarnation. We'll see what Civil War brings...
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 4, 2006 21:43:19 GMT -5
[/quote]Anyway, I actually did a little study on just what you are talking about, and found that the majority of readers who like NA where 15-25 years old, and had only been reading comics an avg. of 5 years.
The majority of people who disliked NA 30 and up, and had been reading comics for 10+ years..[/quote]
This sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm 41 and have been reading comics since the early 70s. It's hard for younger readers to identify with our concerns because they don't have so many years invested in the characters. It's like when the original Avengers left in #16 and Cap's quartet took over. The change was big, but folks accepted it pretty easily since they only had only spent two years getting attached to the team. The 20 year olds today are in that boat so it's no big deal. To those of us who have been around longer, it's not the same. I'm not saying we're right and they're wrong but it's easy to see why we have our own little civil war brewing.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 5, 2006 7:40:48 GMT -5
I spent my high school years (1980-84) out of comics, as I was convinced that it wasn't cool. Cost me a lot of money four years later chasing down those issues when I found that it WAS cool in college! Anyway, while being an Avengers completist "forced" me to seek out the 50-some issues I'd missed, I can honestly say that I have never read those books (the Milgrom years...). I know people have said the Trial of Yellowjacket run is good, but I just can't get into Al's art enough to get through the story. That being said, I'd echo spiderwasp's comments about investment in this team and these characters -- we feel like in a way we know these "people", and to find them not interesting hurts (because to us they should be very interesting -- evolving but within parameters), as well as to find them handled with a certain disdain for our reading heritage is an affront to the time and money we've invested in these books for a LONG time. I feel this way about the way Hank Pym's been jerked around through the years, and I feel this way specifically about what's happening today.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 5, 2006 7:47:00 GMT -5
Anyway, I actually did a little study on just what you are talking about, and found that the majority of readers who like NA where 15-25 years old, and had only been reading comics an avg. of 5 years. The majority of people who disliked NA 30 and up, and had been reading comics for 10+ years..[/quote] This sounds pretty accurate to me. I'm 41 and have been reading comics since the early 70s. It's hard for younger readers to identify with our concerns because they don't have so many years invested in the characters. It's like when the original Avengers left in #16 and Cap's quartet took over. The change was big, but folks accepted it pretty easily since they only had only spent two years getting attached to the team. The 20 year olds today are in that boat so it's no big deal. To those of us who have been around longer, it's not the same. I'm not saying we're right and they're wrong but it's easy to see why we have our own little civil war brewing.[/quote] Exactly, I also discovered that a lot (not all) of the 15-25 year range, where coming on board for one or more of these reasons. Spider-Man, Wolverine or Bendis. All of them are current the "cool" thing in comics. When they are gone so are some of the fair weather fans. A lot of people just don't seem to grasp that the Avengers have 40 years of history, and many of the classic fans feel like marvel has craped all over it. Now in all fairness NA has had some good points. The Annual was decent, although the total ommishen of Peter and MJ have a miscarrage bothered me, and some of the dialogue was well once again childish. Still the action scense where great, and Bendis actually did a done in one, and did it well. It was suggested on a different board that perhaps NA should be moved to ever other month and it made Annual size. I think this would help Bendis's writing a lot. Later guys...
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on May 5, 2006 7:47:56 GMT -5
Busiek wanted to make Silverclaw and Triathilon important, so why can't Bendis make Jessica Jones and Daisy Johnson important? What is the crime in that? How does that hurt the book and the ideal situation that is "your Avengers?" I've explained my feelings and reasons over and over. I'm enjoying this book. Why can't anyone else? ~W~ So, with a little delay I did read issue #18 and throw in my two cents. First of all, I enjoyed it (once again I should say) but I agree with the majority on this board that it indeed was the best NA issue so far. In fact, I can say this issue rocks (imho, of course). Nearly everything about Bendis´ style has already been said, and most of it is as true as it is a matter of opinion. In any case this issue has a good amount of action and, yes, Deodato rocks again, really great stuff from him (nevertheless I am a fan of Finch´s art, too). So, what´s my point? My point is, I do like Bendis´ pace. Yes, it could be some more faster, but it is good as it is. I simply like the (very, I give you that) slow building up tension. I simply like that we still don´t know who the mysterious guy (maybe some incarnation of Korvac, maybe not) is. And I think it simply (at least by now, I´m repeating myself) rocked when The Sentry came along (so at least Bendis´did not change one thing - which is the unmatched leader quality of Captain America who obviously convinced Sentry) and fought the "maybe villain". And his entry is one hell of an appearance, even if he may not be as strong as the opponent is he did gave the Avengers some break. I really believe Bendis did set up Sentry for a scene like this and it was worth it. Hopefully, he´ll stay around from now on. But then again, it has some appeal one cannot be sure what Bendis has in mind with Sentry. The only thing that annoyed me (too) was the wording about the greatest threat. At least so far Cap can´t believably say something like that, for sure he has fought greater threats in the last 40 years. One word about Silverclaw/Triatholon and this Daisy Johnson character. Guys, honestly, in my opinion the Silverclaw as well as Triathlon character sucked, especially Silverclaw was complete dispensable (what was her character actually about, being Busiek´s version of a Hellcat or what?). So, give this character a chance. For me, Busiek´s first years in general weren´t that good at all, they are nowhere on par with the whole Bendis run. In comparison, Steve Englehart did not need a warming up phase nearly as long writing good stories as Busiek did need. I really see it that way. So, you see ~W~ you´re not alone on this board, at least we´re two of a kind.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 5, 2006 9:59:29 GMT -5
OK, some more examples of BENDIS! continuity glitchs: - Sauron doesn´t have a "fire-breath"; - Zebediah Killgrave couldn´t be in that Raft prision, because in Thunderbolts at the same time he was free and his powers were working; - The Savage Land mutates were at the same time helping the X-Men in Uncanny X-Men so no way they could be conspiracing to set Sauron free; - Vertigo´s powers doesn´t work that way; - Sauron´s absorbs energy from the mutants, not their powers, so Wolverine shoud have killed him, he could not have absorbed the healing factor. And the Wanda thing goes way deeper than just she already knowing her kids´d been erased, the kids didn´t even existed in the first place, they were fragments from Master Pandemonium soul, that Mefisto tricked him into finding. And I´m not even one of those nit-picking fanboys, one of those could probably list 1000 more continuity flaws. I don´t think the problem with NA is just the age factor, yeah it plays a role too, but like I said on my other post, I was (like I´m aware many other readers were too) open to change and novelty. And BK has a point, Austen´s run ruined the Avengers before BMB took over, so it not all his fault alone
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 5, 2006 10:50:36 GMT -5
OK, some more examples of BENDIS! continuity glitchs: - Sauron doesn´t have a "fire-breath"; - Zebediah Killgrave couldn´t be in that Raft prision, because in Thunderbolts at the same time he was free and his powers were working; - The Savage Land mutates were at the same time helping the X-Men in Uncanny X-Men so no way they could be conspiracing to set Sauron free; - Vertigo´s powers doesn´t work that way; - Sauron´s absorbs energy from the mutants, not their powers, so Wolverine shoud have killed him, he could not have absorbed the healing factor. And the Wanda thing goes way deeper than just she already knowing her kids´d been erased, the kids didn´t even existed in the first place, they were fragments from Master Pandemonium soul, that Mefisto tricked him into finding. And I´m not even one of those nit-picking fanboys, one of those could probably list 1000 more continuity flaws. I don´t think the problem with NA is just the age factor, yeah it plays a role too, but like I said on my other post, I was (like I´m aware many other readers were too) open to change and novelty. And BK has a point, Austen´s run ruined the Avengers before BMB took over, so it not all his fault alone You know Tommy and William are back in YA, when Misphsito was killed/Destroyed, those parts of him, became Tommy and William again, and where raised by others. There is so much stuff that Bendis just ignored, or omitted so that his version of the story would work. His stories are slow, we should be on issue 12 not issue 18 with what has been told so far. Also, the Collective is not Korvac, it is a postal worker from Alaska named Michael, who has all the powers of the mutants, very lame in my opinion. The classic team did not need this revamp what they needed was a good writer who had some fresh ideas but still cared about continuum.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 5, 2006 16:12:08 GMT -5
Yellowjacket - I'm glad I've someone else who's enjoying this book too!
As for the "glitchs . . ."
- The Savage Land Mutates story from the first NA story take place after the "Uncanny X-Men" arc. When the X-Men get back from the Savage Land, a few weeks pass during which "Enemy of the State" takes place. "Enemy of the State" takes place after "Disassembled" and before "New Avengers." Logically, it could be very easily assumed that its been at least a few weeks between the two Savage Land stories.
- As for Sauron, you could explain it that his powers were altered by the new Weapon X project, which was where he was last seen.
I've got "Avengers West Coast" # 52 in front of me. On the last page, Wanda is in the arms of Wonder Man and the dialogue goes like this . . .
WASP: I know Wanda! When she returns to consciousness, her first thought is almost surely to be of her children . . .
AGATHA: No, it will not, Wasp. To spare her that pain, I have closed off that corner of her mind for all time. The little creatures she created are gone, restored to their original state. For Wanda, it will be as if they never were.
And it goes on about how Wanda won't remember her children.
Seems like Bendis read that issue . . .
~W~
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 5, 2006 16:35:36 GMT -5
Excellent research. Good arguments coming out on all sides. See, this is healthy disagreement, and I'm learning something. I don't buy X books anymore, so I couldn't dispute any recent Sauron stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on May 5, 2006 23:26:06 GMT -5
Sure does. In fact, I find it interesting that two Avengers stories that have been most influential upon Bendis's run, thus far, have been two in which female Avengers were mistreated by their own friends and allies.
I mean, of course, the Wanda scene you describe above, along with Ms. Marvel being allowed to go off with Marcus in AVENGERS #200.
Bendis has said more than once that AVENGERS ANNUAL #10 was hugely influential on him-- it's the story where Claremont tries to "fix" some of what Shooter and Michelinie did to Carol in #200.
And Spider-Woman also figured largely in that Annual, as well...
Given all of that, I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't addressed Jan's problems with Hank, too!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 6, 2006 10:27:53 GMT -5
Uhm, I'm 24 and I don't like NA too much, looks like I'm an exception ;D
As for the continuity points, there is mistake and mistake. In the "Presence" story arc, Cap shows that he doesn't speak Russian, but in the past he has been shown to know the language, so that's a continuity mistake too. However, it has much less impact that Chaos Magic not existing or Wanda not remembering her children (and, btw, she saw her children in the Avengers/JLA crossover, which apparently is in continuity, and coped with it fairly well all things considered).
PS, to me Busiek's worse issue was far better than Bendis' best ;D However, I'm still somewhere around NA 10, so it's possible that my opinion changes with time.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 6, 2006 11:28:05 GMT -5
As for the continuity points, there is mistake and mistake. In the "Presence" story arc, Cap shows that he doesn't speak Russian, but in the past he has been shown to know the language, so that's a continuity mistake too. However, it has much less impact that Chaos Magic not existing or Wanda not remembering her children (and, btw, she saw her children in the Avengers/JLA crossover, which apparently is in continuity, and coped with it fairly well all things considered). Since when is Avengers/JLA in continunity? I know it is over in DC, but not with Marvel, I don't think. In any event, I thought that they didn't remember that story. Or perhaps finding that out during JLA/Avengers was blocked out again when reality went back to normal, but it had pushed the memory close to the surface. Hence why all it took was Jan saying one little thing to have it all come back to her . . . The Chaos Magic is a problem, but I'm sure SOMEONE can explain it away. Maybe Wanda had manipulated Dr. Strange into saying that in unconscious effort to have the Avengers stop her. By him saying that there was no such thing as Chaos Magic, it could have been her making him say that so that the Avengers would understand that she was altering reality itself and it wasn't just "her and her crazy Chaos Magic" powers. Does that make sense? It makes sense to me . . . ~W~
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 6, 2006 13:53:24 GMT -5
Ok, good effort W, but in WCA annual 7 Agatha restores Wanda´s memories of her kids, that´s why in JLA/Av. she recognized them. An there´s no way she could recreate her children, only if she took the soul fragments from Mephisto again, and i don´t think she is that good a Witch to destroy Mephisto (with or without Chaos Magic). She already accepted the loss of her children. And why would she kill Agatha Harness, her friend and mentor?
But you are really good at explaining BMB continuity glitches, you deserve a no-prize! (Did Marvel still have no-prizes?)
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 7, 2006 0:34:52 GMT -5
Since when is Avengers/JLA in continunity? I know it is over in DC, but not with Marvel, I don't think. The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe occasionally refers to the JLA–Avengers crossover, albeit obliquely (never naming the JLA or other DC properties). For example, here’s a snippet from the Avengers team entry in the Avengers 2005 issue:
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 7, 2006 7:56:19 GMT -5
Yep, that makes perfect sense and it's exactly the kind of things I like to hear. As you see, I don't mean that Bendis can't write what he wants because of continuity, but I mean he should justify what he writes inside continuity. If he ever makes Wanda or Strange saying something like that, I would be happy.
As for Wanda's children, Night Phantom showed that Avengers/Jla is in Marvel's continuity as well, and according to Vonbek she should remember anyway (I haven't read those WCA issues myself).
Once again, there would be many ways of trying to explain it. To say a silly one, someone could have hypnotized Wanda after seeing how distraught she was at seeing her children again in the crossover. However her emotions would have been "boiling" in the subconscious and exploding as a breakdown when Jan casually remembered her the truth.
Bendis is a fairly talented writer, I'm sure he can make up much better explanations than mine, but he doesn't seem to want to.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 8, 2006 7:58:02 GMT -5
As for the continuity points, there is mistake and mistake. In the "Presence" story arc, Cap shows that he doesn't speak Russian, but in the past he has been shown to know the language, so that's a continuity mistake too. However, it has much less impact that Chaos Magic not existing or Wanda not remembering her children (and, btw, she saw her children in the Avengers/JLA crossover, which apparently is in continuity, and coped with it fairly well all things considered). Since when is Avengers/JLA in continunity? I know it is over in DC, but not with Marvel, I don't think. In any event, I thought that they didn't remember that story. Or perhaps finding that out during JLA/Avengers was blocked out again when reality went back to normal, but it had pushed the memory close to the surface. Hence why all it took was Jan saying one little thing to have it all come back to her . . . The Chaos Magic is a problem, but I'm sure SOMEONE can explain it away. Maybe Wanda had manipulated Dr. Strange into saying that in unconscious effort to have the Avengers stop her. By him saying that there was no such thing as Chaos Magic, it could have been her making him say that so that the Avengers would understand that she was altering reality itself and it wasn't just "her and her crazy Chaos Magic" powers. Does that make sense? It makes sense to me . . . ~W~ Excellent post, I would have to agree you would truly deserve a no-prize. However it also is a prime example of why I don't like Bendis's writing in NA. The fans of the comic are constently having to try and explain away, his story lines, because they make no sense in continuum. Right you are trying to explain away bad writing in my opinion. If someone is a good writer the fan does not have to fill in gaps that someone can run a mack truck through. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 8, 2006 9:53:27 GMT -5
I think the editors are also to blame on this. A good editor would (and should) say to the writer when his stories doesn´t make sense, and when he has to come up with a better explanation to heal a plot hole. That the reader has to explain away continuity flaws and figure out when in chronology a story did happen just shows that the editors are not even caring anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 8, 2006 10:57:29 GMT -5
I think the editors are also to blame on this. A good editor would (and should) say to the writer when his stories doesn´t make sense, and when he has to come up with a better explanation to heal a plot hole. That the reader has to explain away continuity flaws and figure out when in chronology a story did happen just shows that the editors are not even caring anymore. I think it is a combination of the two. Look at the newer non-hollywood writers and you will see good editing. When you look at the hot writers or the Hollywood writers you see horrible editing. How is that? Well glad you asked . I think that hot writers like Bendis, Millar, Ellis, and Brubaker are given as much rope as the want, the same goes for the Hollywood writers like JMS, Heinburg, Whedon, and Hudlin. Sometimes you get a some great writers who care about the charaters, and want it to all make sense in continuum and be true to the charaters, along with writing a fresh good story. Such as Burbaker, Heinburg, Whedon, and sometimes Millar. Then you get writers like Bendis, Ellis and Hudlin who don't give a crap about what happened before they started writing, all they care about is writing the flash in a pan story, that will make no sense in a few years, and makes little sense now, leaving it to there fans to explain away all the problems in the plot. Then you have JMS that is hit and miss.. Always have the exception. Of course this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 8, 2006 13:43:39 GMT -5
Good point BK.
One of the things I miss from the Shooter years is exactly that, back then no matter if you were an unknown writer or artist or John Byrne, a bad idea was a bad idea, a good one got printed. Now if you're one of Joe Q's pals or a Hollywood guy you can get away with pretty much anything. Even a butchery like Hudlin is doing in the Black Panther series.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 8, 2006 15:02:57 GMT -5
Good point BK. One of the things I miss from the Shooter years is exactly that, back then no matter if you were an unknown writer or artist or John Byrne, a bad idea was a bad idea, a good one got printed. Now if you're one of Joe Q's pals or a Hollywood guy you can get away with pretty much anything. Even a butchery like Hudlin is doing in the Black Panther series. Yea, I was really looking forward to BP, then I read the first few issues, and was disgusted. Radioactive Man is not Russian, BK is not a crazy crusader, etc... And worst of all BP is not from the hood. Now they are marring BP to storm in a futile attempt to boost the sales of BP. As for my problems with Bendis, well look and NA, Bevooret(forgive the spelling) actually has said in an interview that he was against the disassembled storyline and was totally against the NA comic, but Joe Q over ruled him. Who knows how many times editors have been against stuff only to be overruled.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 8, 2006 17:30:03 GMT -5
Here's a question . . .
Is it automatically a bad story if history is not referred to?
If the characterization is fine; the story pacing, set-up and conclusion are good, but with no mention of continunity, past stories, or quasi-ignorance of past storylines over a long, 40-plus history make it a bad story?
I seem to be seeing a lot of people claiming that lack of continunity is the reason they don't like Disassembled/NA. Is that the case?
Let's say it wasn't Bendis. Let's say (hypothetically), it's Chris Claremont writing Avengers. He pounds out a solid story with strong character moments, amazing scenes, and a good balance of action and plot development. BUT, in the process, he ignores an arc that Busiek or Johns or Stern had done. Does the lack of continunity and/or references to that arc automatically cancel out every good or possibly good aspect of the story?
~W~
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 8, 2006 18:12:15 GMT -5
I think that hot writers like Bendis, Millar, Ellis, and Brubaker are given as much rope as the want Enough to hang themselves by? Here's a question . . . Is it automatically a bad story if history is not referred to? No, but neither should history be cavalierly violated. However, a series with a long, strong legacy probably has a lot of fans for whom the legacy is a selling point. If one wishes to write a slew of stories that ignore such a legacy, it may make more sense to write for a new series instead.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 8, 2006 19:55:17 GMT -5
I think that hot writers like Bendis, Millar, Ellis, and Brubaker are given as much rope as the want Enough to hang themselves by? Here's a question . . . Is it automatically a bad story if history is not referred to? No, but neither should history be cavalierly violated. However, a series with a long, strong legacy probably has a lot of fans for whom the legacy is a selling point. If one wishes to write a slew of stories that ignore such a legacy, it may make more sense to write for a new series instead. I couldn't agree more. There's a big difference between not mentioning the history and totally rewriting it. If you want to rewrite history, that's what Ultimates is for. I'm really not a stickler for every little detail being remembered but total shakeups just for the sake of shaking things up irritates me. That said, I'm looking forward to the shakeups coming from Civil War because I'm not crazy about where things are now (And that's just as much because I don't think the stories are very good as it because of continuity). I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on May 8, 2006 21:32:52 GMT -5
I have always been a "good story first" guy-- ask anyone I used to deal with (or, rather, anyone who used to have to deal with me!) on MV-1. That being said, a decent respect for the property at hand would dictate at least a little research being done, before writing. I would also add that one of Kurt Busiek's great achievements was that not only did he write IMO brilliant stories, with excellent characterization, dialogue, pacing, and action, BUT--- he also not only respected AVENGERS history and didn't harm it, he intentionally repaired some things that had been damaged by previous writers and made a lot of it work or make sense again. His run, I think, was undervalued at the time, and will only be more respected in years to come, as people look back on it.
|
|