|
Post by bobc on Nov 8, 2006 20:14:04 GMT -5
Put a sock in it, Doomsie. I don't have "blind hatred"--I have reasoned hatred. Actually I don't hate Bendis on a personal level, that'd be a bit ridiculous, I just hate what he's done to a comic which I've collected for thirty years.
But what fuels my hatred even more is how people like you seem to feel it's A-ok for a writer to be incompetent. Bendis cannot follow his own continuity, can't follow Marvel continuity, doesn't do his homework, writes characters out of character, writes incoherent dialogue, has made Ares God of War JEWISH sounding---the list goes on and on. This incompetence, in a saner era, would get a writer FIRED but no let's defend this clown.
You "depair" over little old me? Don't bother.
I am PISSED about how Bendis has destroyed the Avengers identity, and it's because I give a d**n. I've probably spent 100k on Marvel over the years so I am gonna say whatever the hell I feel like saying when they go astray.
Oh and one last thing, before you make a fool of yourself anymore--let's just say I know a little more about the Marvel/Bendis situation than you do, although I can't talk about it here. Bendis is holding far more power than you seem to think and I am hardly alone in those sentiments. Bendis is, more than anybody else other than Q, running that show
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 8, 2006 21:09:34 GMT -5
...Bendis FAR FROM runs Marvel, he will in half a year's time be writing exactly two 616 books! He did not prose Civil War, it's clear his fingerprints ARENM'T all over it because Luke Cage et al have played very minor roles.... HE is NOT controlling the direction of Marvel or anything like that. In the name of sanity, let's not get obscenely carried away! I have to strongly disagree. Bendis is writing only two books, that is correct, and there are others who already have more on their plates in terms of number of titles. Ed Brubaker comes to mind with, what, 4 already? However, Bendis is largely determining the direction of Marvel despite having only two books. Avengers Dissassembled was a major change in the Avengers family of titles, reaching into the Thor, Iron Man, CA and the late CA&F titles. I don't even need to address whether the changes/stories/characterizations were good or bad -- the fact is that Bendis' take determined the direction not only of his own title, but the whole family of Avengers titles. As another poster mentioed, Bendis' New Avengers also reached into the Spider-Man family, and for a time ASM was basically an Avengers title. Avengers Dissassembled directly begat House of M -- which affected the whole Marvel Universe including the X-books in one way or another. Bendis wrote HoM, and every other book had to toe the line of Bendis' story. (Of course, various writers are already busily retconning large swaths of HoM, which if anything confirms that HoM sucked and people are eager to forget it.) And furthermore House of M at least partly begat Civil War, which is currently running roughshod over 40 years of history and characterization. Look at the counter-example. Ed Brubaker has 4 (5?) titles -- can anyone even suggest that he is determining the direction of Marvel? Has anyone else's book had to toe his line? No. Despite being IMO a much more talented writer than Bendis, he's had to toe Bendis' line. There's the $20 question -- how much of Bendis' success is a result of the hype machine? How would New Avengers have fared without the dual cash-cows of Wolverine and Spider-Man? Without a massive marketing push from Marvel the likes of which the Avengers title has never seen? Without several gratuitous shock-killings to kick things off? Without a succession of top-flight artists? Look at it another way -- pick a competent writer at random and hand him all those advantages on a silver platter. How do you think the book will do? RSC
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 8, 2006 21:27:01 GMT -5
Perhaps that's true to some extent, but however top tier the title was, that never translated into an impact in Marvel's ficitional universe. People often criticize Busiek's Kang War and John's World Trust storylines because however epic in scope they were, the rest of Marvel's titles never made mention of them. (Contrast to the titles in the 80's where Roger Stern had the Avengers impact the Savage Land, Eternals, Skrull Empire, etc.) To be fair, this was the spirit of the times. The comparison fails because this time editorial forced other titles to acknowledge Bendis' crossover whereas they did not do so with Kaang Dynasty. You can chalk that up to whatever editorial/writer politics were going on at the time as opposed to now, but it certainly has nothing to do with AD or HoM being superior stories to Kang Dynasty or even World Trust. I've seen recent interviews where writers have flat come out and said "I do not want to do this crossover," (Chris Priest of CA&F) or "I don't agree with what I'm being told to do with my title" (Brian Reed of Ms. Marvel, JMS) and the bottom line was that editorial said "tough sh*t." That's particularly questionable given that continuity to Bendis is whatever Bendis says continuity is. His failings in this regard are well-established and indisputable. HoM and CW are simply products of the Marvel hype machine that understands that people will fork over a ton of dough for a bloated maxi-crossover-series. I therefore can't agree that these series "prove" that there is a general demand for continuity now. AD was not about continuity. HoM was not about continuity. CW is MOST DEFINITELY NOT about continuity. RSC
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 8, 2006 21:30:08 GMT -5
Well at least one person around here isn't in denial.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Nov 8, 2006 22:11:46 GMT -5
I've been trying to stay away from these sorts of topics because they invariably lead to the same discussion. Bendis sucks.
While some don't agree with it, I'd think it's fair to say that many of those who've gathered here do agree with it. Many of us are longtime Marvel fans who've come to expect a different kind of storytelling. I remember during much of the 90s, Punisher was among the best selling titles marvel put out (and lesser extent Ghost Rider). Certainly merchandise wise, he was among the top-you couldn't go five feet without seeing that skull.
But I hated it. He's a one note character. He's mad and tough and can never show a bit of emotion because any vulnerability will immediately invalidate everything about the character.
Unlike Batman who has a long enough legacy and different shades that he can play loner and still have some resonance, Frank Castle doesn't have it.
And after several years, Punisher slid into the bottom of the sales pool. Why? Because the stories were all mood and no character. They were big sellers, but they didn't compel anyone to care.
That's what Bendis and Marvel assembled are doing now, across the board.
And no he's not the only one, Bendis, but he's ushered in the resurgence of an ugly era, where you take big flash and bad moods and push it to the moon.
Who do you care about in the MU now? If they kill this current Iron Man, Cap, Black Panther, Scarlet Witch et al will you miss them? Or will you be angry that they took your faves and warped them into these funhouse mirror versions you don't like or recognize?
And Marvel and Quesada knew they could do this when they did the Ultimate Universe.
I could explain a thousand times more, but it's simple, really. sales are no barometer of quality or good writing. bendis has his fans just like Punisher did ten years ago and that didn't make him a good character. And it doesn't make bendis a good writer.
And while he's not the be all and end all of what's wrong with Marvel, his success over the last few years is a big part of this return to overly dark gritty despair filled tales.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 8, 2006 23:23:01 GMT -5
That's another thing which bothers me: what's the point of having both The Not Avengers & the Ultimates if you're going to end up telling the same type of stories...?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Nov 8, 2006 23:26:23 GMT -5
Oh, and don't despair, Doom: just reconcile yourself with the fact that you're our little ray of sunshine...!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 23:56:03 GMT -5
You know what? I like Doom and thew40, because they've got balls. I'm with bobc (although he always manages to say the things I want to say, and better, so I don't have to say them), rex, and the rest of you (nice post above, rex!). But I like it when Doom and W come on here and stick to their guns. I know the hearts get to beating a bit more rapidly, but hey -- that's why this is fun city around here! It's like educational entertainment, only 100x as fun as any filmstrip you ever watched in school!!!
|
|
ozbot
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 103
|
Post by ozbot on Nov 9, 2006 0:26:49 GMT -5
The comparison fails because this time editorial forced other titles to acknowledge Bendis' crossover whereas they did not do so with Kaang Dynasty. You can chalk that up to whatever editorial/writer politics were going on at the time as opposed to now, but it certainly has nothing to do with AD or HoM being superior stories to Kang Dynasty or even World Trust. Whoa, I wasn't saying that AD or HoM was superior at all! (In fact I think the entire opposite.) People were talking about the *influence* of Bendis on Marvel overall, and I had just come up with the idea that inter-continuity among titles really only happened about the time he came on board. Was this because Bendis' stories were so good that everyone wanted to join in on the fun? Was it because Bendis had the ear of Joe Q and threfore got special dispensation? Somewhere inbetween? I didn't mean to imply that these cross-wide events PROVE that there is a DEMAND for continuity. I just meant that this continuity exists whereas it didn't before. AD/HoM/even Civil War IS about continuity, isn't it? It's setting up ways for titles to interact whereas they didn't before. There's a culture in Marvel for whatever reason that expects this, and Bendis/Miller are riding the wave.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 9:10:12 GMT -5
Imperious--unfortunately you're right. I just read another interview with Bendis where he said he wanted to bring a feeling of hopelessness to the Avengers. Can you believe that?
And he did! This endless plodding dialogue, dreary expressions, standing around watching chit happen. This seems to be a common thread through everything Bendis touches--just a sinking, tedious feeling of no hope. This is not why I buy comicbooks--I can watch the news for that.
For forty years Marvel superheroes have triumphed over everything. Things get reallly dark and then they dig their way OUT. I knew the minute Bendis showed Captain America kneeling in a heap, little head-wings drooping, feeling sorry for himself, that something was really wrong.
And things have gotten progressively worse. Actually no, they've just kind of droned on in a holding pattern. I recently read that in Daredevil, Bendis had issue after issue of dialogue about vigilantism--and no action. I'm sure Bendis, who likened writing the Avengers to "taking a really big dump," had many a rare insight into vigilantism (tongue firmly in cheek)--but people buy comics to see ACTION. In this interview I keep referring to, Bendis says he loves action, but it's been done so much, how can you possibly make action exciting or new?
Yeah this is the guy spearheading Marvel these days. Apparently, writing action sequences is just too much for the poor thing. I suppose next he'll whine that using words in a comic is just too taxing. He can't handle action, continuity, characters, and he's whined in the past about how hard it is to get people's attention these days. GOD I can't STAND people like that! What a defeatist little crybaby.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 9, 2006 9:10:17 GMT -5
@ Doom: What I really don´t get Doom, is that you defend Bendis but, unlike W, who actually seems to like NA, you don´t (or please correct me if I´m wrong). So, if you think A:D was a bad idea and New Avengers is not a good series, why defend Bendis? And please don´t pull that argument "it´s selling so well", because Busiek´s Avengers or that Heroes Reborn crap sold better.
@ Imperiusrex: While I don´t like Bendis writing, is not because it´s in the 'grim´n´gritty' school of the 90´s (actually, like BobC pointed out, he is more trying to be a early 80´s Miller clone), but because it´s so bad written. And for a bad writer it´s easier to write a one dimensional character - like your example, the Punisher - or turning a complex character like SW into a lame plot device, than craft a good tale about even a 'dark' character.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 9:45:05 GMT -5
I don't think it's expecting too much that a writer have at least a cursory understanding of the characters he's writing. I mean, to make a character INTERESTING, don't you at least need to know their background and proceed from there?
You know when Bendis had Spiderwoman fly down and grab somebody who was falling with her legs I just about died. When Spiderwoman did that way back in the 80's in that Avengers Annual (she grabbed Carol Danvers and saved her from killing herself if I recall correctly) it was a great, memorable moment. AND it made sense because nobody else was around who could fly better--and the fact that SW could barely remain aloft added a great sense of drama.
So of course 20 years later Bendis rips off that scene, but with his usual incompetence he gets it all wrong. Iron Man's around but SW has to do the retrieving? Maybe somebody should clue Bendis in that SW doesn't even fly, she glides and is very limited in this area.
Man it goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 9, 2006 12:06:18 GMT -5
Put a sock in it, Doomsie. I don't have "blind hatred"--I have reasoned hatred. Actually I don't hate Bendis on a personal level, that'd be a bit ridiculous, I just hate what he's done to a comic which I've collected for thirty years. Well you are free to disagree. I view your hatred as blind and far beyond reason, you disagree with me. That's okay, no need to get personal. ...Actually Bendis GENERALLY follows his own continuity pretty well. I'm seeing plot threads in USM first touched upon a good 50 issues or so ago, and often many more. Now after that I don't feel the dialogue is incoherent, and Bendis can follow... shall we say a 'rough' template of Marvel continuity? I mean, I believe it's forgivable to mention something which had in fact been resolved in issue 35632.65 and never mentioned again, but Bendis goes beyond that. And yeah, he does indeed write some characters out of character. I'd be very happy if Bendis was taken off 616 Marvel. But he's not a terrible COMICS WRITER. I doubt that this would have had Bendis fired in any era but let's agree to disagree. Okay. I have no problem there. I feel he's mutilated the Avengers identity, I give a d**n. And I have no problem with you saying what you feel like saying when you THINK they'be gone astray. I wasn't aware I'd started. Well I disagree and I know I'M not alone in that sentiment with a pretty significent chunk of comics readers with me. Yes, but I honestly don't feel that that was solely because of Bendis. If ANY writer had decided to disassemble the Avengers, then it would NATURALLY have had lasting impact through these other stories. That is like saying Mark Millar controls EVERYTHING because almost every marvel title is reflects Civil War in some way or another- much more than just Avengers titles. I don't feel we can say that that is BECAUSE of Bendis. JMS had a choice as to whether or not to have this impact his book hugely and he decided it should, and he did that- though I disagree with calling it an Avengers title. This is very far from Bendis CONTROLLING this book. .....Well now that's ridiculous. Firstly, read... oh, MOST of House of M, and you'll find they do anything but toe the line. They use the established world, yes, but then do their own thing. Had ANY writer been writing the crossover, it would have had the same effect. It's a CROSSOVER, that's what they DO. Saying he controls the marvel universe is stupid -you act as though he had free reign to do whatever he pleased, when in fact the Decimation was taken as a COLLECTIVE decision and all other writers had a choice if they wanted HoM to affect their titles long-term. Given that the X-books are continually having to reflect HoM, that's unlikely. Plus something being retconned is NO indication that it sucked originally- take Bucky's death as an obvious example. Well ignoring your OPINIONATED last part of the point, I'd say HoM had very little impact on CW. hell, the largest effect I could see it having is causing Mark Millar to say "The X-men had their hour, let's turn to the rest of the marvel universe." Well no, but that is a very unfair comparison. His titles are independent entities- Cap, DD, Uncanny are all sole titles which don't directly impact other books as the Avengers does. Plus Brubaker CHOSE this- if he wanted, he could request that his book impact other x-books but he does not wish to. It's his choice, as it is with Bendis. Toe Bendis' line? What on EARTH are you talking about? His x-men book had to follow through with decimation but beyond that... nothing. If anything he is toe-iing his OWN line that he established in X-Men Deadly Genesis! No, Im pretty sure I'll miss them. Never said it did, never said that Bendis was a good writer because of sales. As someone who has read issue of both, I can safely say they are NOT. I mean besides anything else, Ultimates is 100 times better, but even despite that they don't tell the same kind at all. I prefer to think of myself as the young, smart guy among the bunch of crotchety old men complaining how in their day, comics were tuppence! Naa, you guys know that's only partly true! I am the ray of sunshine and d**n proud of it. I think the W and I might argue about who is being educated, or rather- refuses to be I didn't. Actually, it is my favourite thing ABOUT Disassembled- that cover. I certianly interpreted it differently than you. I do not, that's true. I feel Disassembled was a GOOD idea gone horribly awry but yeah, NA is not a good series. And I would never use a it's selling so well argument to claim something was great, I'd only use it to prove PEOPLE thought it was great. The fact is, I really don't like New Avengers or Disassembled. But you know what? Powers is good. And his Daredevil run is good. His UXM run wasn't bad. And USM can be excellent. Bendis generally can't write team books, but he is NOT bad writer. I think he went BADLY wrong with NA, but I like his other stuff. And even if I DIDN'T, I would still defend him, because he does not deserve many accusations levelled at him and sometimes (Bendis controls everything!) things get taken completely out of control. I defend Bendis because he's a good writer, he's trying to do the best and he has written some d**n good stories, AND because he doies not deserve the sheer hatred that seems to be levelled at his work. I don't like his Avengers stuff because it's a mutilation of my second favourite super-hero team- but in the end, while the wrting is mediocre, but not terrible. So yeah, that's why I defend him.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 16:59:26 GMT -5
I couldn't even consider reading this much information.
If you are going to tell me off, please keep it to 200 words or less.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 9, 2006 17:06:38 GMT -5
...Actually Bendis GENERALLY follows his own continuity pretty well. I'm seeing plot threads in USM first touched upon a good 50 issues or so ago, and often many more. Now after that I don't feel the dialogue is incoherent, and Bendis can follow... shall we say a 'rough' template of Marvel continuity? I mean, I believe it's forgivable to mention something which had in fact been resolved in issue 35632.65 and never mentioned again, but Bendis goes beyond that. And yeah, he does indeed write some characters out of character. I'd be very happy if Bendis was taken off 616 Marvel. But he's not a terrible COMICS WRITER. I have to take you to task over this one. First, respecting continuity means honoring other writer's continuity that came before. But to Bendis, it seems to mean following the continuity he feels is convenient, or making it up. To be fair most writers do this to some extent, but Bendis is particularly bald-faced and excessive about it. Second, Bendis is not good at holding to even his own continuity. Examples: --In Avengers Finale, Bendis' stated reason for breaking up the team was Tony Stark's financial straits. Well, New Avengers starts and there has been not one mention of it since. His own in-story reason vanished like smoke. --In NA, the NA form to recapture villains in the "Breakout" arc. Since then there has been one issue where they captured one villain (Wrecker). The second Breakout-related story (Savage Land) is currently in Limbo indefinitely. That's more than two years with no resolution, or even movement toward resolution, of the primary plot. Yes, but that overlooks the question of why this writer (Bendis) was allowed to throw that kind of bomb into the Avengers title/family of titles. More to the point, why a badly-flawed story was foisted on the fans as the new baseline. I'm not against, in principle, the kind of story we saw in AD. However, I am strongly against the execution of the story as Bendis carried it out. Before it ever saw the light of day it should have been apparrent to anyone with a teaspoon of background Avengers knowledge that AD had major, major problems. My problem is that Bendis basically said: "I don't care. F*** the fans. What I say goes. Editorial is backing me up. You don't like it, go read back issues." Mark Millar is currently setting the direction of Marvel much like Bendis has -- and much like Bendis he is making a major hash of it. Maybe worse, even. How would you like to be the writer of, say, IM or FF and have to deal with the fact that another writer just made your character into Adolph Hitler (II) or Dr. Mengele (II)? And YOU get to deal with it. But that's a different story. The test is: Do you as the writer of "book X" have to toe the line of another writer (Bendis in this case) or not? I cannot think of a single example outside of CW where Bendis had to accomodate another writer. And Bendis turned down writing CW. Yet I can think of many examples where other writers had to accomodate Bendis. Is Bendis controlling everything? No. Is he having an influence well beyond his own titles? Yes. A perfect example: Chris Priest in CA&F planned to start up a romance between Cap and Wanda that would play out over a couple of years in directions unknown. But lo, AD comes along and Bendis says: "I decree that Wanda is suddenly nuts." It was made clear in no uncertain terms that Chris Priest was going to have to deal with that and rewrite the story to accomodate Bendis' requirements -- which basically threw two years of Priest's planned stories in the trash can. Who here is calling the shots? I think it's an open question as to how much "choice" writers have in participating in these kinds of crossovers. Ed Brubaker in CA for example was dealt a particularly stupid hand by Bendis' HoM, and had to toe the line. If you don't recall, Bendis declared that "Cap is old" and would play no part in HoM whatsoever. (This after just having demanded that Chris Priest rewrite the Cap/Wanda thing and referencing it in AD!) Therefore Ed Brubaker had to deal with it and cobble together a weak, nonsensical filler story right in the middle of his big "Winter Soldier" arc. Now, do you honestly think that Chris Priest and Ed Brubaker were keen on accomodating Bendis at the expense of their own titles? The X-Book sort of reflect HoM. Note that many of the "irrevocably depowered" mutants are already repowered. I fully expect HoM to be functionally non-existent in another year, except for the odd mention for continuity lip-service. Please, don't even mention Bucky's death/resurrection in the same breath. One survived for 42 years (and should never have been retconned) and the other is already being junked a year later. The takeover and subsequent mind-wipe of the world's population was given as a reason, along with Samford, for SHRA. Team books only impact their family of titles if the editors demand that they do. This is a fact throughout Marvel history. And at least recently editors have demanded that the Avengers family of titles accomodate Bendis. See above. Mr. Brubaker has never come out and said one way or another what his opinion is of having to deal with these crossovers. My opinion (which is just that, my opinion) is that he has not been at all keen about them, particularly the HoM one. The HoM tie-in was easily Mr. Brubakers worst effort, looking like it was thrown together in about 5 minutes just to get it over with. And the CW-tie in? Cap doesn't even appear in the majority of 2 out of 3 issues. Does this sound like something Mr. Brubaker is keen on dealing with? Ha! More likely he's ducking the pile of crap that's been thrown his way by Millar in CW and Bendis in NA. See above. Clear examples with Ed Brubaker and Chris Priest. Another good example is Brian Reed of Ms. Marvel, who has come right out and said publically that he doesn't agree with what he is being TOLD TO DO to accomodate Bendis from HoM and Millar from CW. You are contradicting yourself here. You agree that AD and NA is poor work, but Bendis is a good writer. Which is it? I think you fail to appreciate that people could have a principled reason for intensely disliking Bendis' product. Do you think that a large section of the Avengers' fanbase would just simultaneoulsy develop a mad hate-on for a writer, purely at random? For no reason at all? Now, you may not agree with the reasons -- I understand that. However, you have to admit that it is a fact. Many people do dislike his Avengers work and do want to see him off the title -- fact.Moreover, this same segment is being further alienated with the EIC giving Bendis the second title and telling them to "go read back issues." As a lifetime loyal customer of Marvel, I find it highly insulting that Marvel tells me to essentially go f*** myself if I don't like their product. If anything, the people who dislike his product have been able to present a much better case as to WHY they dislike it, than his fans have been able to present the case as to WHY they like it. If NA is poor work as you seem to admit, then Avengers fans should be perfectly justified in believing that Bendis should not continue to write the title, and certainly should not be given a second title. I don't hate Bendis personally, nor, I'm sure, does anyone else. If he was taken off the Avengers entirely, or at least if another writer had been given the second title (and Cap was taken away from Bendis as well) I would not care one iota what he did after that. But until that happens I will continue to strongly voice my displeasure for his work on the Avengers. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 9, 2006 17:24:27 GMT -5
No arguments.
Actually, it was mentioned in New Avengers #3. You said it wasn't mentioned once, there's one I remember off-hand.
-
This is Bendis. It WILL be resolved.
It will probably just take a decade or so to do it.
The reality is, we have no way of knowing whether ANY other writer could have pitched that story and had it work the way it does. I mean, lots of people, INCLUDING Avengers fans, LIKE the story. A harsh fact. And it was logical that this story would affect other titles.
Well I like Millar and I don't think either writer has to deal with that but THAT is for another thread...
Source? AFAIK, Bendis proposed the idea of SHIELD vs the Super-Heroes, but Millar preferred Super-Heroes versus the Super Heroes and thus that's what we got. I never heard that Bendis refused to turn it down.
As are many writers.
Bendis, yes. But I maintain if ANY other Avengers writer had decided to disassemble the Avengers and Wanda would die/go nuts/whatever then the SAME WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Bad example. Brubaker chose to do a fill-in issue for House of M, he DID have the choice, I'm certain I read this. Tom Brevoort asked him if he'd like to, and he agreed.
Matter of opinion but let's move on.
Difficult when virtually no-one KNOWS about the takeover and mindwipe?
"Demand"- you make it sound very unreasonable. It makes perfect sense Disassembled would affect these other titles- yes or no?
Actually, I strongly disagree. As I said, he had a CHOICE about NA and from interviews I got the impression he's very happy with Civil War. The fact that he doesn't appear in 2 issues is for three major reasons:
1. Since Cap's side is so clearly addressed in other books means he wants to focus on his supporting cast 2. As he said himself, if he does a big story which is lost against the background of CW it's pointless 3. He wants to introduce the cast of CA to the many people who will pick up this title just because it's a CW tie-in- he wants them to keep reading.
And he is using this arc excellently to advance his OWN plans for the title. This isn't being a hindrance to him, quite the opposite.
Your move, mon ami.
See above. Clear examples with Ed Brubaker and Chris Priest. Another potential good example with Brian Reed of Ms. Marvel, who has come right out and said publically that he doesn't agree with what he is being TOLD TO DO to accomodate Bendis from HoM and Millar from CW.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 9, 2006 19:05:40 GMT -5
I couldn't even consider reading this much information. If you are going to tell me off, please keep it to 200 words or less. Your own post telling off Doom, which Doom was primarily responding to, contains approximately 238 words.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 20:00:06 GMT -5
Right. And it was the most perfect post ever made by any member of the human race.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 9, 2006 20:35:33 GMT -5
Actually, it was mentioned in New Avengers #3. You said it wasn't mentioned once, there's one I remember off-hand. That's a quibble. The fact remains that Bendis promptly ignored his own reason for breaking up the Avengers. And oh yes, Tony Stark was supposedly too broke to keep supplying quinjets. NA started off with three "irreplaceable prototype QJs," and three have since been destroyed and a non-existent, unaffordable fourth damaged. And Tony is still supplying quinjets. Oops. There's another criticism. It's obvious that in addition to trying to ape 80's Miller, he is also attempting to ape 80's Claremont in terms of the extended plot style. Unfortunately it's been a miserable failure. This is the base idea of AD: An internal problem within the Avengers spins out of control and causes havoc and the breakup of the team. (Whether or not it has to be Wanda isn't the issue.) That is a fairly simple, workable idea -- an idea which makes sense on the face of it. I honestly believe that a competent writer could have taken the base idea and made a good story out of it. Bendis' problems begin with poor research and go from there. The most fundamental, egregious problems of AD could be solved simply by the writer doing his homework. That doesn't even require imagination or inventive storytelling -- simply professional competence. Let's concede that some portion of Avengers fans like it -- but conversely some portion of fans hate it. The fact is that it has resulted in a major polarization, and that is not good. But would another writer have had the stroke with editorial to make it happen? Would another writer have taken the attitude: "I'm doing this because I can, and f- the people who disagree with me." He did have a "choice." But we don't know how much a "choice" it really was. Ed Brubaker is fairly new at Marvel and he wants to succeed. He's taking on a lot of stuff. Who's to say what the editorial politics would be regarding the consequences of declining? Would he not get the books he wants? Would it prejudice editorial against his future plans and pitches? There could very easily be a quid pro quo situation here. Wrong, SHIELD found out about it and therefore the people in power in the govt. found out about it, whether it's public knowledge or not. Yes, but you're trying to have it both ways. I'm giving you indisputable examples that Bendis is setting the directions for books that are not his own. That was the issue. First you said he isn't and now you're saying he is, but that's the way it should be. You can't have it both ways. Actually what he said was that "rather than see it as a bother he was going to try to turn it to his advantage" or something of that nature. In other words, he sees it as a challenge to make lemonade out of lemons. Quite frankly this is spin from Ed Brubaker. He's saying what will keep him in good stead with Marvel. And Marvel is increasingly desperate to recast CW in a positive light -- read some interviews to see just how much sh*t is going on behind the scenes to try to salvage something out of it. Baloney. Plain and simple. Baloney. I've said it before on another forum -- he's found an elegant way to avoid dealing with the horriffic characterization that Millar and Bendis have saddled Cap with thus far. It really is an ingenious approach -- simply don't have Cap appear and duck the whole thing, while still reaping the sales bounce. I applaud him for ingenuity. The real problem is that Millar and Bendis have written an unrecognizable and unsympathetic Cap. There is simply no way to reconcile that Cap with the Cap that Mr. Brubaker has been writing. So he's ducking the problem. This is a specious reason because a large portion of fans despise what's going on in CW and would probably be quite happy to not see it in the Cap title. The real reason is #3. This is probably the only real reason Mr. Brubaker wants to deal with CW. Sales bounce. That's a legitimate concern. But he can't say so because that makes him look like a cynic. RSC
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 20:49:14 GMT -5
Red--right ON.
Bendis is incompetent. Incompetence precludes talent. You must first master basics like continuity and characterization before you can proceed to making a story interesting. After all, you need to be able to pass a ball, set it and then hit it before you can even entertain the thought of being a great volleyball player. Bendis doesn't even grasp the basics.
Bendis sucks
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 21:19:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 9, 2006 21:43:20 GMT -5
It amazes me that so many avid Bendis supporters will point out one or two places where he has mentioned continuity to say "See, he follows it." To me, Bendis just seems like a great idea man. He comes up with some great ideas for stories, and then just goes with them. The problem is, he either doesn't bother to research the necessary history or alters it to fit his story. Then, he gets another big idea before he is finished with the first one and just ... I hope he'll let the Wasp be the leader of the Mighty team. She's always been one of my favorites and has been one of their best leaders. Way back in issue #1 1/2, when she led the team against Egghead, she established herself as great. Hey. I just pulled two Bendises in the same post.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 22:00:03 GMT -5
What great idea has he ever had?
Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 10, 2006 10:25:19 GMT -5
What great idea has he ever had? Seriously. Okay, maybe great was too strong a word. However, I'll have to say, the idea a character that combined all the powers of the mutants who lost theirs was pretty good - it was the execution that went nowhere. The idea of a character who has incredible power but is scared to use it is good - again, boring execution. Even the idea of having an Avenger go crazy and destroy the team in order to jump start a new team sounds pretty good on paper but, in the end, it never really went any where. I really think that any of these ideas, in the hands of a more competent writer, at least had potential.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 10, 2006 10:55:12 GMT -5
Fair enough. You're probably right. I always thought the Scarlet Witch was really mega-powerful but something in her psyche was holding it all back. So yeah Disassembled coulda been good. But it's hard to say since, as you said, the execution of it all was so thoroughly incompetent
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 10, 2006 11:05:59 GMT -5
The Top Ten Best Ideas Bendis Had for the Avengers: drumrolllllll.......... 10)Killing Alpha Flight off-panel 9)Nine straight splash pages in an issue where the Avengers don't appear 8)Dr. Strange saves the day 7)Emma Frost saves the day 6)Man-Suit Ronin! 5)Jessica Drew -- QUINTUPLE AGENT! 4)Zombie Ninjas! 3)Xorn. Again. 2)Plot resolution? We don't need no stinking plot resolution! 1)How about another shot of Spider-Woman's ass?
RSC
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 10, 2006 11:50:38 GMT -5
The only thing missing from that list was Paul Schafer!!
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Nov 10, 2006 14:41:26 GMT -5
The Top Ten Best Ideas Bendis Had for the Avengers: drumrolllllll.......... 10)Killing Alpha Flight off-panel 9)Nine straight splash pages in an issue where the Avengers don't appear 8)Dr. Strange saves the day 7)Emma Frost saves the day 6)Man-Suit Ronin! 5)Jessica Drew -- QUINTUPLE AGENT!4)Zombie Ninjas! 3)Xorn. Again. 2)Plot resolution? We don't need no stinking plot resolution! 1)How about another shot of Spider-Woman's ass? RSC funny cause it's true. consider yourself exalted...
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Nov 10, 2006 14:48:30 GMT -5
@ Doom: What I really don´t get Doom, is that you defend Bendis but, unlike W, who actually seems to like NA, you don´t (or please correct me if I´m wrong). So, if you think A:D was a bad idea and New Avengers is not a good series, why defend Bendis? And please don´t pull that argument "it´s selling so well", because Busiek´s Avengers or that Heroes Reborn crap sold better. @ Imperiusrex: While I don´t like Bendis writing, is not because it´s in the 'grim´n´gritty' school of the 90´s (actually, like BobC pointed out, he is more trying to be a early 80´s Miller clone), but because it´s so bad written. And for a bad writer it´s easier to write a one dimensional character - like your example, the Punisher - or turning a complex character like SW into a lame plot device, than craft a good tale about even a 'dark' character. actually I think my point was that Bendis with his various and myriad plots which go nowhere has actually helped create the atmosphere of doom and gloom because everyone is taking these dangling plots and going in these dire and depressing directions. and my Punisher analogy is that you can write a lame one note saga and have great sales, a ton of recognition and still be putting out truly terrible comics that'll be recognized as such in several years. I think bendis writes for an audience that has a vastly different expectation in terms of heroic compelling storylines.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 11, 2006 8:32:48 GMT -5
Wait.
Did Bendis really kill off Alpha Flight off panel?
Do NOT tell me that is true.
|
|