daned
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 87
|
Post by daned on Jan 20, 2007 2:12:53 GMT -5
But thew!! We shouldn't have to wait until it's all over!!! He has once a month to tell a story, or at least a chapter of it. I want a d**n story for $5.80, not $58.00. You know how much beer I can buy for that? (That's my Australian stereotype quota for this week)
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Jan 20, 2007 3:18:00 GMT -5
How come the Bends fan can only say two things when asked why they like his NA writing? It's either "he did great work on DD or Powers or Ultimate Spidey" or his stories are better read all at once? Neither of which are a reason why his writing on NA should be considered good. I can give you a list of reasons why his writing is not good. Solid, valid reasons from poor characterization to just plain bad technique. I'd even be more satisfied with " I just like it". I've used that plenty of times. " I don't know what's great about it, I just like it." Doesn't prove a d**n thing, but it's a real reason. A good writer shouldn't have to write 50 issues just to make something work. Even as part of a long arc each issue should be able to stand on it's own. Bendis' work doesn't stand, it leans, slouches and trips over itself. And, on top of everything else " I just don't like it"
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jan 20, 2007 7:17:39 GMT -5
Alas, no, it’s the same interview that I linked to and that we’ve already been discussing. Is there anyone else thinking that the reason Bendis can't write dialogue well, is that he can't speak well? Bendis fans have often cited his “realistic dialogue” as a point in his favor. I’m willing to concede that his dialogue style does reflect a natural way in which real people speak. However, it’s a fairly limited slice of the “speech spectrum” actually out there, even if we narrow the field to contemporary American English. More importantly, it is sometimes at great odds with the established characters he writes dialogue for. For instance, unless there’s some special in-story circumstance, Captain America should never come across as inarticulate. It’s been my guess that Bendis’ dialogue reflects his own speech patterns and perhaps those of some people he’s personally acquainted with. That’s fine: a writer should write what he knows. But if that’s what’s going on, I feel he should apply the maxim more rigorously (i.e., write speaking roles only for characters for whom that dialogue style is reasonable) or else expand his knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Jan 20, 2007 10:01:59 GMT -5
How come the Bends fan can only say two things when asked why they like his NA writing? It's either "he did great work on DD or Powers or Ultimate Spidey" or his stories are better read all at once? Way to make a general assumption, dude. Just how Bendis haters automatically assume the worse and hate whatever he is writing despite not even writing a single page of it? You know, it's hardly even worth saying anything in this thread. It feels like everytime I DARE to even suggest that maybe Bendis is doing something good, I get run over by a score of negative comments. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 20, 2007 10:16:08 GMT -5
How come the Bends fan can only say two things when asked why they like his NA writing? It's either "he did great work on DD or Powers or Ultimate Spidey" or his stories are better read all at once? Neither of which are a reason why his writing on NA should be considered good. I can give you a list of reasons why his writing is not good. Solid, valid reasons from poor characterization to just plain bad technique. I'd even be more satisfied with " I just like it". I've used that plenty of times. " I don't know what's great about it, I just like it." Doesn't prove a d**n thing, but it's a real reason. A good writer shouldn't have to write 50 issues just to make something work. Even as part of a long arc each issue should be able to stand on it's own. Bendis' work doesn't stand, it leans, slouches and trips over itself. And, on top of everything else " I just don't like it" I agree. Now if someone were to ask me what I like about a writer that I have professed to like, Dan Slott for example, I would have no problem with telling them. 1. He writes stories that are fun to read. 2. He honors the backstories of the characters he writes for, while still bringing new twists and unexpected surprises. 3. His dialogue flows well and fits the individual characters. 4. His story archs are easy to follow even when circumstances get complicated. 5. When I read an individual issue, I could easily write a summary of what actually happened and what part it might play in the bigger picture. 6. He digs around and brings to the surface obscure characters and moments from Marvel history and entertwines them with popular characters. 7. He will give the impression of writing a character into a corner (ie Starfox) but always has a way out that makes sense and keeps the character viable for future use. Now, if someone could give me a list like that for Bendis, I'd like to see it.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Jan 20, 2007 11:45:00 GMT -5
How come the Bends fan can only say two things when asked why they like his NA writing? It's either "he did great work on DD or Powers or Ultimate Spidey" or his stories are better read all at once? Way to make a general assumption, dude. Just how Bendis haters automatically assume the worse and hate whatever he is writing despite not even writing a single page of it? You know, it's hardly even worth saying anything in this thread. It feels like everytime I DARE to even suggest that maybe Bendis is doing something good, I get run over by a score of negative comments. ~W~ Here we go again..... It's not a general assumption. Someone asked you the reasons you like Bendis' writing. Your reply was to look up your posts. you've explained it before. So I did. In fact, I've gone to other boards and looked for reasons. I found you very evasive on why he's a good writer. The two reasons I've stated above above you've mention many many times. i.e. you can't explain to me why he should be considered good. So you like him. That's great, you find him witty and playful and his style works for you. I don't like his work, we're always going to be at odds on this. If I'm a "Bendis hater" then you're a "Bendis zombie" who will continue to think he's the greatest thing no matter how many classic villains he turns into women. I don't hate him for hating him, I dislike his work. He's single handedly destroying a lifetime of Avengers history just .... you know, I have no idea why's he doing it. Just to prove he's innovative and because he can? I don't know. I would like to see Bendis do something positive. I would, I wish he was the greatest writer ever but all I see, is him constantly and continually ruining my favorite team. When someone mentions Ultron you should think adamantium skull faced killing machine, not a shiny big hipped chick with bad hair. Controversy and change is not a bad thing. It's happened throughout the entire Avengers run. A systematic destruction of history, characterization and for that matter, characters is not a mark of a good writer. Lastly, I'll say it again, we can argue all we want but the only person that can change my mind is Bendis himself. If I see him write something I like I will say so. But I do not care what he's written on other books, I'm waiting for good writing on this book.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 20, 2007 17:15:18 GMT -5
This has been examined over and over and over. I would reference one of W's points from a few weeks ago that the biggest part of the problem with Bendis on this board is that the title of the book at issue is New AVENGERS. If Marvel had named it something else, they still could have let him use all of his pet characters and truth be told -- who would have cared? The name "Defenders" was wide-open... I just wish corporate had gone that route and found someone who actually wanted to write an Avengers book take reigns of the title.
And now with Dr. Strange in the mix, this is more like the Defenders than ever before. Check that non-team's history -- see how many of the characters in the two forthcoming "Avengers" titles have a background with the Defenders. And as I stated a little earlier, only 5 of the 14 or so members of the two new teams could seriously be considered Avengers (and I do not include Spider-Man, a character who should always be solo unless he's in Marvel Team-Up, in that five).
And Wolverine is not interchangeable between the Avengers and the X-Men; worked for Beast, doesn't work for Wolverine.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jan 22, 2007 18:36:54 GMT -5
In today’s New Joe Fridays (yes, it came out on a Monday—you know how Marvel is with schedules), when Joe Quesada is asked about fan response to the New Avengers lineup’s dearth of traditional Avengers and dearth of “mightiness”, he replies (in part): Hmmm…why does that sound familiar? Oh, yes: I’m sure when outraged fans voice their displeasure with the lack of continuity with the traditional Avengers membership, Bendis & co. will loudly cite Cap’s Kooky Quartet (it’s like Cap’s Kooky Quartet times two!!) as proof of creative legitimacy. And so it begins…
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Jan 22, 2007 19:36:49 GMT -5
I was thinking of that very post while reading the above Phantom " who was it that predicted this exact reply?" That's just downright scary.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jan 22, 2007 21:58:18 GMT -5
That's just downright scary. BWA HA HA HA HA!!!
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jan 22, 2007 23:05:59 GMT -5
In today’s New Joe Fridays (yes, it came out on a Monday—you know how Marvel is with schedules), when Joe Quesada is asked about fan response to the New Avengers lineup’s dearth of traditional Avengers and dearth of “mightiness”, he replies (in part): Hmmm…why does that sound familiar? Oh, yes: I’m sure when outraged fans voice their displeasure with the lack of continuity with the traditional Avengers membership, Bendis & co. will loudly cite Cap’s Kooky Quartet (it’s like Cap’s Kooky Quartet times two!!) as proof of creative legitimacy. And so it begins… You get a karma point! RSC
|
|
daned
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 87
|
Post by daned on Jan 23, 2007 7:08:11 GMT -5
BUT... Cap's kooky quartet was the second Avengers team (ignoring Cap's late arrival -everybody else does). There wasn't 30 odd years to respect at that point. And as far as power goes? Instead of a couple of acrobatic ninja types, they had two of the most powerful mutants, the world's greatest soldier and a carny. And it was original, not cfcs. (I think we use that phrase enough to give it an acronym)
|
|