|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 1, 2007 16:15:18 GMT -5
Oy!
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 1, 2007 16:19:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Tana Nile & Night Phantom! Iguess I should feel relieved anyway... Withe way they are handling their "heroes" at Marvel these days, I expected the worst possible supositions to be true...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 1, 2007 16:20:50 GMT -5
So you're suggesting that someone is 'handling' the she-hulk already?
Isn't that risky with her being a lawyer?
and the fact that she could put you through a wall.( and not in the positive way already established by Tony Stark)
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 2, 2007 16:38:28 GMT -5
So you're suggesting that someone is 'handling' the she-hulk already? Clay Quartermain is; on the other hand, Logan didn’t want Juggie’s leftovers.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 2, 2007 16:44:18 GMT -5
'Juggies leftovers' that one statement has done more to upset my delicate mental imbalance more than anything in recent history. <shudder>
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 8, 2009 8:15:03 GMT -5
1 - Dr Druid 2 - Triathalon 3 - Demolition Man 4- Hulk 5- Jack of Hearts
Dishonorable mention to Sentry (what a cr@ppy creation), Ares, Gilgamesh
|
|
|
Post by squidboy on May 27, 2009 23:21:59 GMT -5
1. Sentry 2. Dr Druid 3. Gilgamesh 4. Demolition Man 5. Triatholon
Of course it goes without saying that I hate seeing Wolverine in the Avengers (and on virtually every page of every comic Marvel puts out) but I did like him when I was young.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 28, 2009 7:09:12 GMT -5
In retrospect, I should have included Moondragon in my top 5.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 28, 2009 10:51:37 GMT -5
Worst Avengers:
1. Triathalon--his Arsenio Hall Hairstyle alone should disqualify him for membership. Plus he was a pain in the azz.
2. Gilgamesh--I agree he brought absolutely nothing to the table.
3. Rage--Black exploitation at it's absolute worst. If he was so "enraged" all the time maybe he should be in a mental hospital, not the Avengers.
4. Reed and Sue: Great Characters, but terrible Avengers.
5. Silverclaw--Ugh. A complete and utter zero in every way.
6. All the "New Avengers." Particularly Wolverine.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 28, 2009 20:22:02 GMT -5
Man, I think poor Rage was just never handled right at all. I just think there were aspects of him that were stumbles right out of the gate, and he was never committed to after that.
His name was truly dumb, considering that he was an extremely intelligent adolescent, who didn't seem to have a particularly "enraged" personality in the first place. Likewise, his "costume" didn't seem to have any basis in the comic books he supposedly enjoyed so much. It would have helped to have his manner sync up with his true age a little more obviously. And, lordy, what would it do to his mental state to be a kid suddenly thrust into a huge, powerful adult body? And yet. . . he was such a good guy. Clearly wanting to do the right thing. Never willing to take any perceived slight unchallenged, but still respectful- even when upset. And very, very intelligent and remarkably self-posessed (considering his name.)
Maybe it's the Dad in me wanting him to do well. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by betaraybill on Jun 6, 2009 18:48:25 GMT -5
Sandman was an odd, odd membership. Demolishion man, too. Sersi would make a bottom ten list for me. Along with the youngsters Rage, Cassie, Firestar and Justice (though the stage fright angle was good).
I'm on the fence when it comes to whether or not I consider the New Avengers actual members of the historic franchise, mostly because Cap and Iron Man were the ones putting it together. If this current cycle counts then, yeah, Sentry, Ronin-ninja, and Ares would probably round out my list.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Man 2 on Jun 8, 2009 11:12:18 GMT -5
5. Darkhawk. I never could understand how he managed to make the team in the first place, save for Spider-Woman (Julia Carter), having some weird attraction to him.
4. Jocasta.
3. Quicksilver
2. Starfox
1. Sentry (Wonder Man wannabe)
If we had more room, I would have3 mentioned Machineman, Living Lightening, Crystal, and Clint Barton.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 8, 2009 12:08:47 GMT -5
If we had more room, I would have3 mentioned Machineman, Living Lightening, Crystal, and Clint Barton. First, welcome to the boards! Second -- whoa! Hate for Clint Barton? I know there've been some really crazy creative ideas with ol' Hawk lately, but what about his entire body of work with the Avengers? Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jun 8, 2009 12:52:05 GMT -5
Humanbelly--didn't Rage come out after the LA riots? I seem to remember that being the reason I hated the character from the start--he just seemed like cheap exploitation.
Beta--when was the Sandman an Avenger? I missed that completely. Must have happened in one of those eras when I just skimmed stories due to badness. Why would the Sandman be an Avenger?
OMIGOD--The Sentry is probably the worst Avenger ever, mainly because everyone acted like he was going to be the next Big Thing--and he fell flat like everything else Miss Bendis gets his sausage links on. The character has just lain there like a bored hooker for five years. I never guessed that a guy who possessed the power of "a million exploding suns" could be so mind--numbingly dull.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 8, 2009 17:26:44 GMT -5
Re: Sentry-- Well, with great power there doesn't necessarily come great human interest. Really, there's no law that says non-descript, somewhat boring people can't become superheroes. It's almost a revolutionary concept in and of itself. Remind me to tell you about my brother-in-law the airline pilot sometime. . .
Re: Sandman. Heh-- he was officially inducted (as a sort-of trainee/work-release member) in the same group as Rage! And then proceeded to have almost no involvment, and quickly left to join Silver Sable's group.
Re: Rage-- wow, is that right? He was a reaction to the LA riots? If so, yes, that's shameless exploitation. But I re-read his arc w/out that in mind at all-- just seeing him for himself, no overplot involved. Maybe that's why I find him more appealing. Truly, I just kept thinking, "What a good kid-- and he's absolutely trying to do the right thing-- he's just lacking the weight of years to help him out."
HB
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Man 2 on Jun 9, 2009 7:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 9, 2009 13:47:38 GMT -5
I'm certainly not gonna challenge your like or dislike of the character. i don't agree with a lot of the assessments you present, but hey that's opinions are for, right? We don't have to enjoy the same things... However, I will say that the idea that Clint Barton is ripping off Wolverine's personality when he predates Logan's appearance in the Marvel Universe by at least a decade in real time doesn't fly with me When it comes to cocky Marvel hotheads with a hair trigger temper, Hawkeye is the original, everyone else is just a copy...
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Man 2 on Jun 9, 2009 14:56:01 GMT -5
I'm certainly not gonna challenge your like or dislike of the character. i don't agree with a lot of the assessments you present, but hey that's opinions are for, right? We don't have to enjoy the same things... However, I will say that the idea that Clint Barton is ripping off Wolverine's personality when he predates Logan's appearance in the Marvel Universe by at least a decade in real time doesn't fly with me When it comes to cocky Marvel hotheads with a hair trigger temper, Hawkeye is the original, everyone else is just a copy... That is true that Hawkeye was on the scene about ten years before Logan, but I was using the idea that Logan is older than Hawkeye by over a century.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 9, 2009 17:08:46 GMT -5
I'm certainly not gonna challenge your like or dislike of the character. i don't agree with a lot of the assessments you present, but hey that's opinions are for, right? We don't have to enjoy the same things... However, I will say that the idea that Clint Barton is ripping off Wolverine's personality when he predates Logan's appearance in the Marvel Universe by at least a decade in real time doesn't fly with me When it comes to cocky Marvel hotheads with a hair trigger temper, Hawkeye is the original, everyone else is just a copy... That is true that Hawkeye was on the scene about ten years before Logan, but I was using the idea that Logan is older than Hawkeye by over a century. Oh golly, Wonderman-- Hawkeye's flaws, quirks, and idiosyncracies- and the fact that he has shown such tremendous personal growth over the years- is, I think, what makes a lot of us love him so much. Boy, there probably couldn't be much more of a "Joe Six-Pack" Avenger, as it were, than he is. I can't think of any super-hero who started from humbler beginnings, and who pretty much created himself with hard work, focus, bravado, and training. Two gifted trainers in his youth, yes- and then Cap later- but the pupil has to rise to that kind of training. He's the buddy that you love in spite of himself, because you recognize how tremendous and true his heart is. NOW-- in NA, what's up with the sudden concern over Clint's revealing his "secret identity" to the world?? For pete's sake, he used a MASKLESS outfit at one point! (I mean, it was an embarrassing, effeminate fashion disaster--- but still. . .) It seems to have been forgotten that, well, Clint doesn't really have an "other" life. . . Kinda sad, really. HB
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jun 9, 2009 21:21:05 GMT -5
I haven't been closely reading NA, but I agree that this doesn't make much sense. As stated, Clint doesn't have any secret identity to protect. All of his family members are dead. His mentors are dead. Everyone he knows is either, well, dead or a superhero or a supervillain. In fact, as far as I can recall, there's basically just one character in the history of the MU with significant ties to Hawkeye that is not a hero or villain or dead, that being his redheaded childhood friend from Avengers #223 who hasn't appeared since as far as I can recall. I can't imagine why Clint would care about his "secret identity" since there is, in fact, no secret to keep and he's never cared one bit about it in the past. Weird.
Then again, I don't feel like the people writing Hawkeye have the first clue about his character, so it's par for the course.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Man 2 on Jun 10, 2009 9:23:24 GMT -5
I haven't been closely reading NA, but I agree that this doesn't make much sense. As stated, Clint doesn't have any secret identity to protect. All of his family members are dead. His mentors are dead. Everyone he knows is either, well, dead or a superhero or a supervillain. In fact, as far as I can recall, there's basically just one character in the history of the MU with significant ties to Hawkeye that is not a hero or villain or dead, that being his redheaded childhood friend from Avengers #223 who hasn't appeared since as far as I can recall. I can't imagine why Clint would care about his "secret identity" since there is, in fact, no secret to keep and he's never cared one bit about it in the past. Weird. Then again, I don't feel like the people writing Hawkeye have the first clue about his character, so it's par for the course. It's true that the writers are ultimatly responsible for a character's personality and how he/she is persceved by readers, and as such they change with each writer due to what ever his vision of the character is. Now as for Clint becoming Hawkeye again, which will most likely happen with either Kate's retirement or death, because the fans want him to be Hawkeye. Love or hate him, when we think of Hawkeye, even though he's not the orrigional Hawkeye, we think of Clint Barton.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 10, 2009 9:41:29 GMT -5
I haven't been closely reading NA, but I agree that this doesn't make much sense. As stated, Clint doesn't have any secret identity to protect. All of his family members are dead. His mentors are dead. Everyone he knows is either, well, dead or a superhero or a supervillain. In fact, as far as I can recall, there's basically just one character in the history of the MU with significant ties to Hawkeye that is not a hero or villain or dead, that being his redheaded childhood friend from Avengers #223 who hasn't appeared since as far as I can recall. I can't imagine why Clint would care about his "secret identity" since there is, in fact, no secret to keep and he's never cared one bit about it in the past. Weird. Then again, I don't feel like the people writing Hawkeye have the first clue about his character, so it's par for the course. It's true that the writers are ultimatly responsible for a character's personality and how he/she is persceved by readers, and as such they change with each writer due to what ever his vision of the character is. Now as for Clint becoming Hawkeye again, which will most likely happen with either Kate's retirement or death, because the fans want him to be Hawkeye. Love or hate him, when we think of Hawkeye, even though he's not the orrigional Hawkeye, we think of Clint Barton. A funny addendum to this is that it was YEARS before anyone realized Hawkeye had a different, real name! Including Natasha (Black Widow), whom he'd been trying to propose to for months and months prior to Avengers #64 (where his"true" identity is revealed). In his first outing as Goliath in ish #65, he rescues her from the Mad Thinker's android giant, and upon recognizing him, she calls out "Hawkeye!". In her angst-ridden thought baloons, it was always, "My darling Hawkeye" this, or "my gallant, handsome archer" that. Oh, I'm sure we'll get him back as "himself" sooner or later. One might submit that he's just a touch too vain to keep his whole face under a mask for very much longer. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 10, 2009 21:09:17 GMT -5
I'm certainly not gonna challenge your like or dislike of the character. i don't agree with a lot of the assessments you present, but hey that's opinions are for, right? We don't have to enjoy the same things... However, I will say that the idea that Clint Barton is ripping off Wolverine's personality when he predates Logan's appearance in the Marvel Universe by at least a decade in real time doesn't fly with me When it comes to cocky Marvel hotheads with a hair trigger temper, Hawkeye is the original, everyone else is just a copy... That is true that Hawkeye was on the scene about ten years before Logan, but I was using the idea that Logan is older than Hawkeye by over a century. I knew you were going to do that! Hawkeye was in the old west for a while and at the dawn of time when fighting Kang, so he's been around for a long time... I gave you an exalt anyway though. You've been posting a lot so I thought I should encourage ya!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 11, 2009 19:48:49 GMT -5
A funny addendum to this is that it was YEARS before anyone realized Hawkeye had a different, real name! Including Natasha (Black Widow), whom he'd been trying to propose to for months and months prior to Avengers #64 (where his"true" identity is revealed). In his first outing as Goliath in ish #65, he rescues her from the Mad Thinker's android giant, and upon recognizing him, she calls out "Hawkeye!". In her angst-ridden thought baloons, it was always, "My darling Hawkeye" this, or "my gallant, handsome archer" that. I guess Natasha liked her handsome archer better when he was a man of mystery, because after her appearances here in Avengers #63-64, she didn't show up again in the Avengers comic until a year later (in real time) in #76--at which time she promptly delivered a "Dear John/Clint" letter in person. I like that Joe Casey is true to the original when he revisits the events around the time of #59-60 in Earth's Mightiest Heroes 2; in EMH2 (as in EMH 1) no one refers to Hawkeye as Clint...not even Natasha, and not even when they're the only ones in a scene.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 24, 2009 19:09:39 GMT -5
A funny addendum to this is that it was YEARS before anyone realized Hawkeye had a different, real name! Including Natasha (Black Widow), whom he'd been trying to propose to for months and months prior to Avengers #64 (where his"true" identity is revealed). In his first outing as Goliath in ish #65, he rescues her from the Mad Thinker's android giant, and upon recognizing him, she calls out "Hawkeye!". In her angst-ridden thought baloons, it was always, "My darling Hawkeye" this, or "my gallant, handsome archer" that. I guess Natasha liked her handsome archer better when he was a man of mystery, because after her appearances here in Avengers #63-64, she didn't show up again in the Avengers comic until a year later (in real time) in #76--at which time she promptly delivered a "Dear John/Clint" letter in person. Ha! Yes, this really was a classic "Every Group Needs a Romance, And Every Romance Needs Angst" formula relationship if ever there was one. I mean, I never really bought it, even when I was a kid. I'm afraid that Stan was writing WAY too many titles (as well as Roy, early on) to invest any of the proper subtlety or through-thinking into what he was doing with that aspect of the characters' lives. One had the feeling that there was a lot of- er- groping around in the Avengers in an effort to find where that element would fit in. Oh! But back to Least Favorite Avenger! There was one name I think mentioned only once above that NEVER got her proper due (hard to be "least favorite" if you're practically "never-existed"): poor, abandoned Lionheart. Remember her? The mechanics of her origin (some bizarre mystical "investment" during a crisis by Brian Braddock & Meaghan), and the inane "curse" that accompanied it ("your children will die horribly if you ever reveal yourself to them, etc") were just. . . oh, how to put it. . . stupid, contrived, rushed, and forced. I found myself thinking, "This is clearly not really her origin-- there's some kind of lie being put over, here." BUT-- but, but, but-- she herself was an amazing character. A terribly damaged, brave women; a fiercely devoted mother; a woman completely unaware of her own potenial heroism. Those couple of issues prior to her becoming empowered, where she was giving her life to protect Cap and her kids while Thunderball was slowly beating her to death were absolutely gut-wrenching. I found myself unexpectedly tearing-up (mind you, I am a soft touch. . . ). Aaaaand then she didn't get used at all. And Wanda blew up the world and killed everyone. And Lionheart was quietly given the bum's rush. So, maybe there's another category for a character like her? Favorite Least Favorite Avenger? Favorite Abandoned Character? I've been waiting years to be able to speak up for this poor woman. . . thought I'd take the opportunity. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jun 24, 2009 22:52:39 GMT -5
I actually thought Lionheart had potential as well. The era of Avengers was not great, but she could have been an interesting character. I wouldn't mind seeing her again at some point.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 24, 2009 23:58:59 GMT -5
Oh! But back to Least Favorite Avenger! There was one name I think mentioned only once above that NEVER got her proper due (hard to be "least favorite" if you're practically "never-existed"): poor, abandoned Lionheart. Remember her? The mechanics of her origin (some bizarre mystical "investment" during a crisis by Brian Braddock & Meaghan), and the inane "curse" that accompanied it ("your children will die horribly if you ever reveal yourself to them, etc") were just. . . oh, how to put it. . . stupid, contrived, rushed, and forced. I found myself thinking, "This is clearly not really her origin-- there's some kind of lie being put over, here." BUT-- but, but, but-- she herself was an amazing character. A terribly damaged, brave women; a fiercely devoted mother; a woman completely unaware of her own potenial heroism. Those couple of issues prior to her becoming empowered, where she was giving her life to protect Cap and her kids while Thunderball was slowly beating her to death were absolutely gut-wrenching. I found myself unexpectedly tearing-up (mind you, I am a soft touch. . . ). Aaaaand then she didn't get used at all. And Wanda blew up the world and killed everyone. And Lionheart was quietly given the bum's rush. So, maybe there's another category for a character like her? Favorite Least Favorite Avenger? Favorite Abandoned Character? I've been waiting years to be able to speak up for this poor woman. . . thought I'd take the opportunity. . . HB Sigh... Geoff Johns, Chuck Austen, then Bendis...this has been a bad near decade for me as an Avengers fan. In any case Lionheart had her story resolved and can see her kids again. Personally it was the only thing that made the character work for me. That level of gut wrenching sacrifice made her artificial and annoying origin work just a bit more for me. (The Avengers pretty much spazzed out and couldn't form a decent plan of attack against the Wrecking Crew, nevermind that just a few issues back Busiek had shown how they were preparing for certain types of conflicts and training ahead of time, etc. it just smacked of a writer's need to force a situation...) But Kelsey's got some exposure in New Excalibur if you guys are interested... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionheart_(comics)
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jun 25, 2009 2:19:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the update FF. I didn't know Lionheart had appeared again and I'm glad to see some things were resolved. I, like the others, thought she was a good character. The storyline was not so great and I was very confused regarding most of the details of her origin, but I liked the character very much. The issue where they had to tell her children about her "death" was very touching and pretty well written. Unfortunately, the issues before and after it were almost unreadable. I hope to see her and her kids again someday.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 25, 2009 5:31:14 GMT -5
Yep, much appreciation, FF. I do feel a little better knowing that Kelsey didn't just disappear into super-limbo. And it's ESPECIALLY gratifying to know that somebody saw fit to lose the "curse" angle-- an extremely unnecessary external conflict, if I've ever seen one (sorta like someone having to at least touch their hammer once every 60 seconds. . .). Purely because I'm too thrifty to go out and buy the book-- would you mind telling me if her mother's still in the picture? And is her son happy to have a superhero for a mom?
(okay, okay-- I'm CHEAP, not thrifty-!)
HB
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 25, 2009 11:09:17 GMT -5
Yep, much appreciation, FF. I do feel a little better knowing that Kelsey didn't just disappear into super-limbo. And it's ESPECIALLY gratifying to know that somebody saw fit to lose the "curse" angle-- an extremely unnecessary external conflict, if I've ever seen one (sorta like someone having to at least touch their hammer once every 60 seconds. . .). Purely because I'm too thrifty to go out and buy the book-- would you mind telling me if her mother's still in the picture? And is her son happy to have a superhero for a mom? (okay, okay-- I'm CHEAP, not thrifty-!) HB Wish I could tell you, but truth of it is I didn't read the books. I came across this info when I was looking to make a custom action figure of Kelsey (I have this monomania to make every member of the Avengers, well except for hangers on like Deathcry or Silverclaw and anyone who came in the Bendis era) and wanted her most current look...
|
|