|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 28, 2006 8:26:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 28, 2006 11:03:40 GMT -5
Even without seeing the plot, I believe I can say with complete certainty that Bendis will make an even worse hash out of this story and these characters than he already has.
I'm resigned to settling down with my back issues for the duration. Nothing could possible induce my interest until this man is gone from the Avengers.
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 28, 2006 14:16:25 GMT -5
I know I'm in the minority here but I can't wait to read this issue! It's supposed to be a stand-alone. I have always liked the interaction between Clint and Wanda. In HOM, one of the few moments that resonated for me was their confrontation (from memory): Clint: "I loved you. I'd have killed for you. " Wanda: "I love you too." I found that incredibly poignant. Here's a link that contains some more--well, interesting panels from NA 26, with Wanda and Clint. www.newsarama.com/NewJoeFridays/NewJoeFridays20.htmlI think the art looks beautiful, very dream-like. I hear the artist (Alex Maleev) deliberately evoked Gustav Klimt, known for his erotic renderings of females (the cover to #26 should be a clue!) I can't tell from the panels (in the link) if these scenes are actually happening or if it's Hawkeye's fantasy. I don't mean to be a traitor  but I can't wait to read this and find out. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Nov 28, 2006 15:43:12 GMT -5
I must confess, I don't like the art (too painting like) or the premise of the story. As predicted, Bendis is suddenly turning a minor relationship into an overblown colossal romance.
And yup, turns out Hawkeye WAS dead. Bendis is just having Wanda bring him back.
Jeez, the guy dies and is brought back twice in three years. Clearly his second death (and first for that amtter) were shock value alone. My question- WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN KILLING HIM IN HOUSE OF M IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING HIM BACK IN THE EXACT SAME WAY A YEAR LATER!!!??
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Nov 28, 2006 16:13:59 GMT -5
I'm going to read it, but I don't think I'm going to read past it (meaning #27 - up) for awhile.
although everytime I get bored I end up picking up the back issues, that's how I ended up with the Spider-Woman / ninja (hand) saga, and the Civil War cross-overs (I wanted to quit after the Luke Cage issue, that I still haven't read!) the rest of the issues were alright though, and I like the Cap / Iron Man bookend issue idea (although, both issues are forgettable...)
|
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Nov 28, 2006 21:20:13 GMT -5
*sigh* Still waiting for the Scourge to leave Avengers. I had a huge rant all prepared but what's the point. I'm thinking the evil one must have pictures of Q with a male prostitute and has no fear of losing his job. I just can't take a writer seriously who thinks a major life affirming moment is the equivilant of taking a huge dump. I can't comprehend a writer so lazy as to bring in another *god* so he doesn't have to worry about looking up the history of everyone's favorite God of Thunder. On top of everthing else why would you need to include last names in the title of this issue. If I saw the Ballad of Bart and Wanda, I wouldn't be thinking Bart Simpson and... Hell I don't even know another Wanda! When is this Bendis jackassery going to end....?!
Oh yeah, the art sucks too.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Nov 28, 2006 21:30:11 GMT -5
Why kill Hawkeye in AD to bring him back in HoM?
Why kill him in HoM to bring him back in...HoM?
And again, Bendis is writing on whims here with the Clint/Wanda thing. He's taking a 30-year-old flirtation on Clint's (not Wanda's) part and turning into some grand romance overnight.
That's not to say that something like a relationship between Clint and Wanda could never happen, but it takes careful development and time to make me believe it. This is just more "I declare it to be so, therefore it is so" from Bendis.
Something similar happened with Cap/Wanda. It was originally Chris Priest's idea to develop this over the course of a couple of years, which is how these things should be done. Bendis, however, ganked the idea, rewrote it into instant obsession, and then just as suddenly ignored it afterwards.
This is technically poor writing.
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Dec 1, 2006 19:17:56 GMT -5
That's because he is incompetent, Red.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Dec 2, 2006 0:53:04 GMT -5
As the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, it's who you know."
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Dec 2, 2006 21:35:51 GMT -5
Bendis must have the negatives from the last Marvel Staff Party. There's no other explanation.
Just from looking at these panels without dialogue we see again the glacial pace of Bendis' writing.. And the story is based on several ridiculous premises (that Wanda can routinely bring folks back from the dead, that she would do so having killed them - twice, that there is some sort of romantic relationship possible between them).
Wanda is not a deus ex machina, but that is how Bendis uses her. The use of deus ex machina is commonly (though not always) a sign of poor writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Dec 2, 2006 22:33:05 GMT -5
what does deus ex machina mean?
So basically Miss Bendis is just using Wanda's reality warping powers to cover the fact that he hasn't a clue about the Avengers and their history, can't handle continuity, and is too lazy to educate himself. Any craptastic storyline can be plained away by saying Wanda willed it.
My God this guy SUCKS.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Dec 2, 2006 23:01:19 GMT -5
what does deus ex machina mean? Literally? "God from the machine" It was a term coined by the ancient Greeks (hence the language) to describe a situation where a playwright ended a play by having one of the gods fix everything. Since then it has come to mean any contrived device used where a writer cannot solve the plot within (1) his own rules, (2) the rules of the genre or (3) the rules of good writing. So basically Miss Bendis is just using Wanda's reality warping powers to cover the fact that he hasn't a clue about the Avengers and their history, can't handle continuity, and is too lazy to educate himself. Any craptastic storyline can be plained away by saying Wanda willed it. My God this guy SUCKS. So basically, it means what you just wrote... |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 2, 2006 23:19:39 GMT -5
Well, I think it was the Night Phantom, in another thread, who quite articulately explained why this "longtime Avengers' fan" is so full of it & such a fraud: Wanda's powers were tu affect, bend the rules, if you will, of probabilities, not to ALTER realities, and certainly not on a planetary scale... that is (or was) Franklin Richards gig...
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Dec 3, 2006 0:12:55 GMT -5
Balok--thanks for the explanation. You are so shockingly literate and intelligent, I feel almost ashamed that my crackpot posts reside next to yours. I'm sure you view my writings with an eerie Spock-like detachment, much the way zoo-goers view the babblings of the common spider monkey. I feel so white trash.
Ua2--I have to disagree with you there. Although I'd rather dive into a river of snot than stick up for Bendis, I will say that the angle of Wanda having suppressed mega-powerful abilities could have been legit. Over the years, her powers have fluctuated wildly--probably more so than any other comic character. She fought the Enchantress to a standstill early on, but later couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. I think the angle of Wanda's powers being kept in check by a psyche that feared her own power could have been fascinating--but instead it turns out that the whole thing was one big annoying gimmick. The kind Bendis specializes in.
Benids is like so dues ex retarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Dec 3, 2006 12:40:36 GMT -5
what does deus ex machina mean? Literally? "God from the machine" It was a term coined by the ancient Greeks (hence the language) The only thing I'd add to Balok's excellent post (since he mentions the "language") is that the phrase "deus ex machina" itself is actually the Latin translation from the original Greek phrase. As Balok states, this device is said to have originated in the days of ancient Greek drama --and its overuse/misuse was decried even back then, by no less than Aristotle (when he discussed dramatic tragedy as part of his "Poetics"). So, we are in exalted company when we analyze/criticize/debate creators' works  Back to NA #26's preview pages: Wanda (or the woman I'm assuming to be Wanda, she actually looks more like Natasha) is shown with two distinctly different color eyes in one panel. Wonder what's up with that. The more I see these pages, the more I question if any of this actually happening (actual romantic interlude between Wanda-Clint)... or if it is Clint's fantasy or hallucination. |
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Dec 3, 2006 15:10:25 GMT -5
Or maybe the colorist is as competent as Bendis. Just a shot in the dark here
|
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Dec 5, 2006 11:33:06 GMT -5
Ua2--I have to disagree with you there. Although I'd rather dive into a river of snot than stick up for Bendis, I will say that the angle of Wanda having suppressed mega-powerful abilities could have been legit. Over the years, her powers have fluctuated wildly--probably more so than any other comic character. She fought the Enchantress to a standstill early on, but later couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. I think the angle of Wanda's powers being kept in check by a psyche that feared her own power could have been fascinating--but instead it turns out that the whole thing was one big annoying gimmick. The kind Bendis specializes in. Benids is like so dues ex retarded. One part of Wanda´s powers is her mutant power of altering probabilities, and another part is the magick she learned from Agatha Harkness. Neither of them can CHANGE all reality. Doctor Strange himself can´t do that. I like the explanation Busiek gave regarding her powers, that she would have been an energy wielding mutant like Magneto, but thatks to Chton, her powers were infused with magick when she was born in Wundergore Mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Dec 5, 2006 13:02:21 GMT -5
BTW, happy birthday, BobC!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Dec 5, 2006 14:58:36 GMT -5
Thanks Bekky Baby! All I want for my birthday is Bendis' head on a small, tasteful serving tray. Preferably silver.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Dec 6, 2006 0:11:07 GMT -5
Ah! So it must have been YOU, vombek, who I remember explaining this before, and not the Night Phantom...  |
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Dec 6, 2006 8:38:00 GMT -5
Ah! So it must have been YOU, vombek, who I remember explaining this before, and not the Night Phantom... Guess a lot of us had explained Wanda´s powers on these boards many times. BENDIS! must be the only one who isn´t able to understand it...  |
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Dec 9, 2006 12:47:10 GMT -5
I can't wait to read this issue!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Dec 9, 2006 18:35:42 GMT -5
Ah! So it must have been YOU, vombek, who I remember explaining this before, and not the Night Phantom... It probably wasn’t I. |
|
but I can't wait to read this and find out. 
