|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 9, 2012 2:24:22 GMT -5
I just think it's a matter of perspective; I see superheroes as having to be reactive i.e. "Zemo has a chronal bomb over Manhattan! Stop him before New York gets blown back to the Stone Age!!" To me, that's not like pitching in during disasters, that's being the first line of defense against extraordinary threats. I apply a bizarre logic to the situation, but logic nonetheless. I'm accepting that there are superheroes and villains, but then I need some other rules and regs so that things don't get out of hand. Like the end of the first Superman movie where he reverses time by simply making the world rotate backwards. I can accept Superman flying so fast he breaks the time barrier, I can't accept that time on Earth works like a VCR in rewind. Besides if you can just reverse time every time something goes belly up it kind of defeats the dramatic tension. So for me, there has to be some internal logic and some internal breakers that set boundaries. Funny thing, I also just re-read Avengers #4 by Busiek and Perez where they address the fifty heroes against one villain problem. Fun issue... This is an interesting discussion, as it highlights what has to have been a decades-old hurdle for Team-Book writers who have been striving for a higher degree of realism, and who want to make their teams seem more relevant in a societally "realistic" setting. It does seem like there have been several attempts at defining the Team (or at least organizing it) using a real-world model of some sort. In the earliest incarnations, it came across pretty much as a service-focused club, as it were-- like the Lions Club or the Rotaries, say. But with super-powers and special gov't status when necessary. It's seemed like a loose branch of the gov't or military at times. Sometimes there's been a sports-franchise aura, with baseball caps & the ever-present focus on team identity. At one point there was a distinct big-time corpororate template introduced (where Jarvis was running the compound w/ a huge staff)-- but it was discarded rather quickly. All noble attempts, IMO, and each with a claim to being a legitimate model-- but honestly, my gut feeling is that an Avengers-like team of superheroes simply could not exist in our society. Too powerful. Too uncontrollable. Not enough accountability when things go awry. If you took away the superpowers and just made them a group of capable civilians with extraordinary weapons, banding together for the common good, etc, the government and the military would clamp down on them in a heartbeat, yes? Complaints of vigilante-ism and being "above the law" would abound. . . and loudly so. And I do think rightly so (although I hate being such a spoilsport). Which is kind of why there's not exactly a true societal model to base them on. 'Cause they kind of ARE like the Red Cross, and like the police, and like a special forces military unit, and like a sports franchise, and like a private company, etc, etc.-- Just off the top of my head, this morn. . . HB I've never seen the point of ultra realism when you're dealing with Norse gods, men who wear battle armor that would take the same amount of power that would be needed to light up a small city, mutant witches, and advanced robots who reasonably duplicate human movement and emotion while possessing enough power to destroy a mountain range. It just seems pointless. The only thing you can do IMO, is create situations that make the unrealistic less important. Sure Thor has superpowers, but he has an overbearing father who doesn't like his girlfriend and his ungainly step brother is jealous of him. The heroic battles expose part of that personality but so do these more down to earth conflicts. That's not just in comics, BTW; that's pretty much any fiction. Twilight, Star Wars, Back to the Future any scifi or fantasy pretty much throws "what would happen if this was real" out the window. Because real would likely be mundane and the reflect the most banal and boring answer. Yes, those with powers would be killed or they'd hide or be registered by the government or experimented on or used as some sort of emergency force. And every one of these has been used as some sort of storyline or basis for a comic, yet they almost always become some sort of heroic storyline that goes right into the ridiculous and impossible. Why? Because I suspect even if you like 'em with feet of clay, people still like heroes and they want said hero to overcome a worthy foe, not sit around discussing super hero registration. In any case this is all navel gazing anyway; we'd like to say we know what people would likely do if there real super heroes, but you can't possibly know, unless it actually happens which is pretty bloody unlikely. However, heroic fiction has existed and thrived for so long that there's probably a reason. And I believe that people don't mind throwing out reality if they're entertained. And that's part of why the superhero for the most part must always operate from a position of overcoming a greater foe or challenge. I was going to write more but truthfully after reading the second part of the Wonder Man storyline in the Avengers Annual, I don't even have it in me anymore...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 2, 2012 18:19:05 GMT -5
Except that super-hero teams are not direct analogues to law-enforcement organisations; in ways being (mainly) non-government organisations, perhaps a better analogy is organisations that pitch in during disasters, like MSF, Red Cross, et al, but with super-duper powers. Anyhoo, whether it it stretches credibility for some, or not for others, is part of the magic of comics isn't it? The super-hero genre takes everything, mashes it up, maybe parking logic to one side and then just rolls on. I just think it's a matter of perspective; I see superheroes as having to be reactive i.e. "Zemo has a chronal bomb over Manhattan! Stop him before New York gets blown back to the Stone Age!!" To me, that's not like pitching in during disasters, that's being the first line of defense against extraordinary threats. I apply a bizarre logic to the situation, but logic nonetheless. I'm accepting that there are superheroes and villains, but then I need some other rules and regs so that things don't get out of hand. Like the end of the first Superman movie where he reverses time by simply making the world rotate backwards. I can accept Superman flying so fast he breaks the time barrier, I can't accept that time on Earth works like a VCR in rewind. Besides if you can just reverse time every time something goes belly up it kind of defeats the dramatic tension. So for me, there has to be some internal logic and some internal breakers that set boundaries. Funny thing, I also just re-read Avengers #4 by Busiek and Perez where they address the fifty heroes against one villain problem. Fun issue...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 2, 2012 9:13:21 GMT -5
Eh, it happens in the real world all the time. Cops/federal agencies from different districts will take over if they have jurisdiction- firefighters and police will often take charge if a situation is more within their expertise. Except that those organisations may well still co-operate, simply with one 'taking lead'. In dramatic sense, yes, Each book should highlight its own stars. But one wonders how many Marvel incidents may have been lessened with some more heroes turning up. But then they ARE busy with the seemingly 3-4 monthly (Marvel time) crises and sundry 'events'! ;D Federal and State criminal investigations rarely work "together" in physical action. One will take lead and they will share information of certain cases, but they likely wouldn't bust down doors together, for example. Also if SWAT is called in, regular police are pulled back because the procedures are so different. It honestly makes sense to imagine it would work the same with superheroes- some powers wouldn't work well together or would cede a tactical advantage. For example- heat may lessen the intensity of magnetic fields and their effects on metals, so you might not want Polaris and Human Torch fighting together. But it would be hard to coordinate that sort of thing in the heat of battle. If I'm used to working with Thor, Iron Man, Cap, the Vision, et al. and I know exactly what they can do, I don't really think it would matter much if Cloak and Dagger or Agents of Atlas want to show up and offer a hand...they might just get in the way of the most experienced and powerful heroes who might wrap something up pretty easily. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me, actually.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 1, 2012 21:50:40 GMT -5
It seems like such a long time ago. . . But I do seem to remember taking it as an indirect reference to the "We are all Americans today" sentiment that many other nations extended to the US on/after 9/11. Something like, "In the Avengers darkest hour, ALL superheroes are Avengers"-- but that may have been a stretch on my part. . . or just a coincidence. That association left me a bit sour from the get-go, as it seemed to be capitalizing on an real-world sentiments in an inappropriate fashion. But I could have been reading 'waaaaaay too much into it. Given all of that--ALL of everyone knows ALL of everyone else in this universe, and the idea of an "Avengers Business Only" Crisis is just absurd. Of COURSE other folks are going to lend whatever help they can. and not worry about flashing an Avengers ID. Even as a kid I found the inevitable, "this is an X-Men/Avengers/Fantastic Four matter. . . thanks for the offer, but we'll handle it" to be an unsupportable contrivance. Just drove me crazy. ;D HB While I can see the parallels you speak about, i guess the only person who can answer for that is BMB. As to you your second point, about territoriality in the MU - hear hear; I couldn't agree more (with allowance of caveats of course, which would always be natural - that each core team has their area of speciality/focus which kind of precludes others at times). But in general terms? yes, I have to agree. Eh, it happens in the real world all the time. Cops/federal agencies from different districts will take over if they have jurisdiction- firefighters and police will often take charge if a situation is more within their expertise. Personally it would make sense if you were facing Ultron and other super folks (who had no clue how powerful he was) were acting like he was a run of the mill robot, they'd be in danger and more of a hindrance than a help. The Avengers run drills on how to fight Ultron and it would make sense that they could do a better job than just letting Ben Grimm for example, jump in the middle like a bull in a China shop. I hate Avengers Annual #10 where Rogue takes out several Avengers in something like ten seconds, but it illustrates an example of where if it's a situation where you know a foe and the other group does not- it sometimes does make sense to be territorial. And it may be contrived, but it is far more preferable to the alternative where fifty heroes pop up (given that NYC is home to probably a hundred heroes, it's not really unlikely...) and effectively overwhelm any threat with such superior numbers that there's no real suspense or drama...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 31, 2011 11:42:52 GMT -5
Excellent post, freedomfighter, and you've been duly exalted. It is amazing to me how little I know of the Marvel Universe now after seven years of saving my pennies for hardcovers and trade paperbacks (of older material). Reading many of the posts in this thread just leaves me scratching my head. Coming from you dlw, that's high praise. I've read your blog and it's always a fun romp through some classic comics. Also a minor quibble, but I'm fairly sure that Two Gun Kid and some of the other folks mentioned were honorary Avengers or Avengers in training and were never awarded full status. Several characters were just there to flesh out some storylines (I'm thinking that Hellcat and Moondragon never went past their probationary periods too, which always surprised me...) I'm away for a few days, really enjoying Richmond Virginia, so I don't have my full library available to check these things out. Have a happy New Year folks!
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 30, 2011 10:19:17 GMT -5
The way I interpreted that panel was that it was like "the Avengers -- and their friends Nick Fury, Daredevil, Human Torch, and Spider-Woman." Kind of like when many slaves are all shouting "I am Spartacus!" in the movie; it is not literal, but more a show of strength in solidarity. As to the idea of too many characters getting Avengers membership (mentioned in an earlier post or two), and therefore maybe some being less than stellar heroes, well that ship has sailed hasn't it, long since? 5 new members within 2 years of launch of the original title/volume. The inclusion of characters such as Swordsman, Mantis (over-rated in my humble opinion, sorry, but that is how I feel), Two Gun Kid (really, Marvel?), Starfox (I love the character, but he was no Captain Marvel!), Silverclaw (the weakest note of Busiek's run?), Captain Britain/Lionheart. Now that is a highly subjective list of Avengers who maybe should not have been, and I guess we each have our own, but the point is that the Avengers has always seen new members come and go, it is part of the fabric of the Avengers tapestry since the early years, is it not? If we're not going to bash Bendis' contributions then we should probably not go on about the weaker parts of other writer's runs either. As for Avengers, there has been a great history of legacy characters- i.e. characters who relate to another. As you point out Starfox is part of Mar-Vell's history and also ties in Thanos as a threat. Swordsman is part of Hawkeye's and by association, Mantis is part of that legacy. Hercules was part of Thor's, and the Black Knight was a legacy from their villains roster. What I enjoyed about previous Avenger teams is that it brought together lesser knowns in with some of Marvel's bigger names. Bringing in Spider Man, Wolverine, Dr. Strange, et al. does nothing to expand the scope of the MU and the Avengers, in fact, it makes it smaller. Instead of the someone like the Lion God who was created for the backstory of Swordsman and Mantis, we get Norman Osborn for ten issues because he's a villain that fits Bendis' plans. And even when Bendis does include lesser knowns, to my knowledge he doesn't really do much with them. That's not a complaint- I genuinely would like to know what major storyline revolved around Echo or Jewel. The one character he did cover in detail was the Sentry and that felt like navel gazing because it just rehashed what had already been established about his dual nature. Plus it was just prelude to his demise which felt predestined as no one could figure out how do you handle a character who sounds more powerful than Galactus with the Cosmic Cube... Anyway, the only characters I would like to see are folks who bring in more of those outer elements- Nova brings in the whole universe he's been protecting, and powerhouse villains like the Sphinx, someone like Modred would bring in the Wundagore universe, Vance Astro has the history with the Guardians and would bring in the Badoon and Korvac as well as a possible interesting paradox having both he and Justice together (how hard would it be to see your younger and future selves one of whom bright and sunny, the other hardened by a lifetime of genocide and destruction in the future?). I like to see the Avengers used as a gateway to the whole tapestry of the MU and not just the bigger parts...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 22, 2011 19:10:04 GMT -5
It's funny to not be the guy in a thread who hates Bendis the most... I've disliked 99% of what he's done on the title, but you do have to remember that most of his work was facilitated by Brevoort and Quesada. It would have been easy to rein in some of Bendis' excesses, his stylistic tricks if you will, if they chose to and they did not. They let him go amok. Disassembled ("not like this!" aaagh! Boom!!). Greenlighted by Marvel. Secret Invasion? Greenlighted by Marvel. Killing Alpha Flight? Greenlighted by Marvel. Letting Wanda go crazy and displaying a level of power that she never had without being possessed and ignoring that Dr. Strange himself talked about chaos magic so it wasn't just "made up?" Greenlighted by Marvel. At every turn they had an opportunity to say "this doesn't fly- work on it and see if there's a better angle." Marvel didn't. So I can get angry at Bendis (and I am...), but Marvel editorial should know there's a legacy here that had to be preserved for the next guy who writes the book and to keep the franchise viable and they didn't. There were several chances to improve the clarity and storytelling and a long standing editor like Brevoort didn't do it. That's on Marvel. If everyone is kissing your ass and telling you your book is genius and letting you get away with crap, then I have to blame them just as much.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 21, 2011 9:56:48 GMT -5
I think even his most ardent fans would agree that Bendis doesn't write earth shaking, big adventure very well. Which is a shame because that's kind of a huge part of big, powerhouse teams like the Avengers and JLA. Even his biggest event, Secret Invasion is at its heart, a mystery story that simply got really big and very inconsistent... I can't disagree with your point here about the earth-shaking emphasis. However, besides reinvigorating the line with success, I think he made some excellent choices with new members during has era: specifically Luke Cage, Iron fist, Spider-man, Doctor Strange and now Daredevil, all of who I am glad to have seen as Avengers. Luke, DD and Iron Fist, I am okay with. Spidey, Wolverine, Jessica Jones and Doc Strange, not so much. These characters always felt shoehorned in. Spidey is good when he's the low man on the totem pole and has a ton of problems that an average guy can empathize with. You can say he's outgrown that status, but when you can go to Tony Stark for a jet or for protection for your family or a new cybernetic Spidersuit, it just makes for a less relatable character to me and that should be Spidey's place in the marvel universe. Dr. Strange...well this is the same problem the Defenders have always had. Team Doc up with any heavy hitters and things just go into ridiculous status. I mean, nothing short of Galactus with the cosmic cube should slow down Strange, the Silver Surfer and the Hulk- they're just too powerful. And Doc's powers are so ill-defined that he is just a hindrance to many books. While the Hulk is a powerhouse, he can still be knocked out (well except in the Godawful World War Hulk mini where nothing in the universe could stop him...that story TRULY bugged me) Wolverine. ech. I won't even bother with Mr. Overexposed.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 14, 2011 15:17:49 GMT -5
I think he was the architect of his Avengers who had no real connection to the previous team or any remembrance of its history. The franchise he wrote sold well, for several years, so he did the job he was hired for and Marvel can certainly point to that and win any argument, I suppose. As a longtime fan, I can't even in a begrudging fashion, give him much credit for anything else. I don't think any of Bendis' Avengers storylines are recalled with much joy or passion even by his fans (unlike, say, his Powers work). But hey, I'm glad you liked the stuff... And this is the rub for me. Enjoying his work has not detracted from the Avengers I have enjoyed since my earliest readings (starting around 251 or so, and extending backwards through reading a friend's back issues in the 80's - thanks Pete!). No, it hasn't been the same Avengers I knew, but then again that era for comics has probably gone. I suspect that the Busiek period was a last hurrah for a type of Avengers writing and team representation that I believe won't come around again. I may be wrong of course. And of course there is no guarantee that Marvel will look to create stylistic change following Bendis' departure. I hope they do, but time will tell. But the point I would make is that the number of writers who would write the Avengers in a way that reflects those earlier eras more than the recent one and who already have not had a tenure with the Avengers is probably very small indeed given Marvel's current slate of creators. Even including those with a prior Avengers link, and whose work may be sympathetic to older times may be quite a short one: Waid and Casey come to mind. No, I don't regard Bendis as the Devil among Avengers writers. His style has been at odds with that of many (all?) his predecessors. There has been some good (the dialogue mainly for me; some of the inclusions especially long-overdue ones such as Luke Cage, Dr Strange, Spider-man, Iron Fist, Daredevil) and bad (the indistinct sense around arcs amid line-wide Events; the over-repetition of certain story telling devices), but I think with any writer the same is true. I think even his most ardent fans would agree that Bendis doesn't write earth shaking, big adventure very well. Which is a shame because that's kind of a huge part of big, powerhouse teams like the Avengers and JLA. Even his biggest event, Secret Invasion is at its heart, a mystery story that simply got really big and very inconsistent. You know I was going to go into this whole thing about current comics and I find that Mark Waid did an interview that covers his terrific Daredevil and does a better job summing up my current malaise than I could anyway... www.comixology.com/articles/482/Why-Daredevil-Talks-Like-That-An-Interview-with-Mark-Waid
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 13, 2011 19:21:58 GMT -5
I DO think that Bendis has been a primary architect of the Avengers franchise revival, so arguably his contribution should not be wholly dismissed I would suggest. That said, I think the time is right for him to go (and probably was at the end of New Avengers volume 1). What I hope for most of all after Bendis goes is distinct voices for each Avengers title, if we still have 3 at that stage: Avengers; New Avengers; Avengers Assemble - and for me that means 3 discrete line-ups and 3 separate writers. There has simply been too much overlap between Avengers and new Avengers (vol. 2) for my taste. I think he was the architect of his Avengers who had no real connection to the previous team or any remembrance of its history. The franchise he wrote sold well, for several years, so he did the job he was hired for and Marvel can certainly point to that and win any argument, I suppose. As a longtime fan, I can't even in a begrudging fashion, give him much credit for anything else. I don't think any of Bendis' Avengers storylines are recalled with much joy or passion even by his fans (unlike, say, his Powers work). But hey, I'm glad you liked the stuff...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 11, 2011 15:46:42 GMT -5
A biased poll: what about polling for 'I never left' and 'I generally liked Bendis and will give the next writer a chance'? The assumption of the poll is that someone went away - not everyone did. By excluding those that didn't you are selecting a very specific viewpoint anyway... In fairness to woodside, there was a large contingent on this board who made no bones about leaving the book when Bendis came on. I think this message board skews towards more old school fans and there was some validity to his line of thinking given his long history with the board.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 9, 2011 15:09:45 GMT -5
I dunno, from what I read it's still her fault. "hey guys I want to bring my never existed kids back so I'm going to go to an evil dictator who takes over the world on a weekly basis, and just tried to kill the FF because he hates Reed Richards for...I don't even know why anymore, he just does. And we might unleash a powerful energy force with immense power that could do something crazy like take me over and make me do bad things, but that wouldn't be MY fault, right? Phoenix, you'll back me up on that one, right?" Tampering with forces beyond one's control for self interest, makes you responsible for the outcome in my book... Crap! I had a nice, long, well-written response to this -- and then the computer ate it. The long and short of it: the mini-series isn't done yet, so we might get a better understanding of the circumstances. I'm sure it was an eloquent and marvelous reply, but unless Wanda's kids have some greater purpose in the universe, beyond her own want and need to have them back, then she's doing this for the wrong reasons. She's conspiring with a mad dictator, who despite the occasional lapse into morality has done stuff like kill his own subjects for no other reasons than he can. Wanda tapped into a powerful force because she heartbreakingly missed her kids, who by most accounts, don't really exist- they're a manifestation of her power and some other power she tapped into- at least according to everything I've ever read (it's probably retconned at this point...). I won't argue that they're not human,they're the Vision's kids after all, so they could never be fully human, but bringing persons back from the seemingly dead or non-existence is a very tricky concept, and while it happens from time to time through some manipulation of events, it shouldn't be allowable. I mean why didn't Wanda bring back Scott Lang too? Bet his daughter misses him. Should Cassie go to Dr. Doom and get his help to tap into that power. wanda should help as it is her fault to a degree. And what about Jack of Hearts,the power Wanda tapped into restored him, couldn't it do it again? They both deserve their chance to live again too. I appreciate that Wanda is on the side of the angels again- I don't like Bendis and Heinberg deciding that losing her kids made her into a) a raving lunatic several years back and then b) the revised version who tampered with forces beyond her control and less actively still ended up hurting practically every one she loved. I think in order to redeem a character they need to be pursuing a greater good than their own self interest.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 7, 2011 9:53:07 GMT -5
. . .Vision how the synthezoid's own ex-wife callously manipulated the events that caused his near complete destruction and inactivity for the last year of marvel time or whatever its been... Did you read the first post in the thread? Wasn't completely her fault. I dunno, from what I read it's still her fault. "hey guys I want to bring my never existed kids back so I'm going to go to an evil dictator who takes over the world on a weekly basis, and just tried to kill the FF because he hates Reed Richards for...I don't even know why anymore, he just does. And we might unleash a powerful energy force with immense power that could do something crazy like take me over and make me do bad things, but that wouldn't be MY fault, right? Phoenix, you'll back me up on that one, right?" Tampering with forces beyond one's control for self interest, makes you responsible for the outcome in my book...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Nov 26, 2011 14:29:45 GMT -5
You know after I posted the Vision image I kept wondering why it was bothering me so and I finally figured it out. The Vision really just looks like some guy in a costume. When Buscema, Adams, Colan Perez and even Heck drew him, there was always something cold in the eyes, something very sharp and narrow about his features that made him a bit more otherworldly. Here, he just looks like a guy in a costume. It's the unconventional nature of this artist/artwork, I think. I'm not liking it at all-- don't think it's well-suited to this genre. It reads as watercolors done in an Impressionistic style, or something (outside of my field of knowledge, I must confess). Muddy, shadowy, colors are washed out--- "soft"-looking. I wish I could articulate it better. But look at Spidey- his comparatively garish colors and lack of fabric wrinkles make him look like he was cut & pasted into the picture from another drawing. Also looks like he's floating above the grass (inconsistent shadows on the ground). The overall visual sense is one of being "natural" without actually being cleanly "realistic". And it just doesn't suit Vizh well at all. Hmm-- and Tony and Stephen could be exactly the same person, if you trimmed Tony's goatee. . . [quoteI'm also going to assume that Tony very delicately and compassionately told the Vision how the synthezoid's own ex-wife callously manipulated the events that caused his near complete destruction and inactivity for the last year of marvel time or whatever its been... Well, one would hope. I guess the other problem is that the whole offhanded tone he's assuming here (both in words and in his cocky physical stance) is wildly inappropriate to the situation (even for Tony) given the weight that Vision's loss should have carried for all of the folks that knew him the longest. Which-- hunh-- isn't anyone in that panel except Tony, come to think of it. But, I really should reserve harsher criticism on that score until I've managed to read the issue. That's only fair. Is this still BMB, I assume? HB[/quote] It is still Bendis and there is absolutely minimal context as to what happened to the Vision before. Bendis has taken his liberties with Avengers stories to new heights, he's now even ignoring his own part works... I read the issue on the stands and feel perfectly comfortable in saying that the Vision's return is done with the merest whimper and virtually no bang... And the art, man the art is just bad. Iron Fist's mask looks like a helmet. Is it a helmet now because that would at least explain why he no longer has eye holes, but instead giant white space like Spider Man. Jessica Jones looks like a bad clown painting, someone either artist or colorist needs a crash course on what a woman wearing makeup looks like. But the centerpiece of the page Vision, looks bored and average. Look I did an image search on bing: www.bing.com/images/search?q=the+vision+marvel&FORM=BIFDThere's some sort of consistency there- he looks cold, sleek, dark, menacing. There's intrigue there and that kind of artistic legacy fits a character well, and the characters around him as well- it adds layers to the universe they walk through.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Nov 23, 2011 22:36:20 GMT -5
You know after I posted the Vision image I kept wondering why it was bothering me so and I finally figured it out. The Vision really just looks like some guy in a costume. When Buscema, Adams, Colan Perez and even Heck drew him, there was always something cold in the eyes, something very sharp and narrow about his features that made him a bit more otherworldly. Here, he just looks like a guy in a costume. I'm also going to assume that Tony very delicately and compassionately told the Vision how the synthezoid's own ex-wife callously manipulated the events that caused his near complete destruction and inactivity for the last year of marvel time or whatever its been...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Nov 22, 2011 13:37:26 GMT -5
and his special attack is freakin awesome
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Nov 22, 2011 13:32:03 GMT -5
They also brought back the Vision in Avengers #19 in a very dull return...so at least there's hope for a reunion...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 26, 2011 12:20:29 GMT -5
I know Shooter has had his ups and downs and people hate him as much as love him and his tenure at Marvel is an... interesting one. However, few would deny his experience and his skill as an editor. More importantly, he also has a great way of explaining his editorial decisions. With all that said, I loved his review of Ultimate Spider Man #1. Found it dead on. And I'm happy someone with a decent sized name in the industry is saying some of the same things many fans have been saying about Marvel's editorial policy, decompressed storytelling, etc... www.jimshooter.com/2011/10/ultimate-comics-all-new-spider-man-1.html
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Aug 18, 2011 21:09:09 GMT -5
ugh--it's worse than I thought. Sales are down more than 20% from just five years ago. that actually doesn't surprise me a bit. I'm sure the industry is suffering from event fatigue. five years ago, there were a ton of big events unspooling like Secret War, Infinite Crisis, Identity Crisis and anytime you go to the well too often, you're going to chase off readers, instead of keeping them. Price hikes and the economy also have an impact...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Aug 16, 2011 19:05:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Aug 11, 2011 22:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Aug 11, 2011 9:11:00 GMT -5
I dunno, it seems some of you guys want literal translations from comics to screen, which seems to be what doomed Green Lantern. My wife saw this with me and LOVED it. She's generally bored with superheroes (she can't even sit through Dark Knight which I don't blame her for-it's a dire depressing movie...), but found Cap charming and thought the movie tugged on the heartstrings just right. I suppose if you were looking for the perfect superhero movie this didn't hit on all levels, but if you were looking for a fun movie with an extremely likable good guy that didn't just sit solidly within the genre, it did so wonderfully. And I predict the box office will follow Thor's pretty closely when all is said and done...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Aug 8, 2011 21:58:13 GMT -5
I can't get to the site via the original URL. It's like it's not been renewed or something- I get a placeholder site...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 27, 2011 15:25:18 GMT -5
I do think Iron Man has a couple of iconic moments. Oddly my favorites are all in a What If story or fighting other Avengers. First I love the What If where he has to equip the other Avengers in armor. grantbridgestreet.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-if-avengers-had-never-been-by-jim.htmlAt one point, IM is taking on both Subby and Hulk by himself and giving a good showing with a mix of daring and cunning; it's a great sequence that shows how resourceful Tony is. He then sacrifices himself to save an armored Hank Pym after a savage beating. However, it isn't canon seeing as how it's an alternate universe, so it's not a true Avengers moment, but still... Iconic moments that do stick and pass the test are when IM takes on a mind controlled Thor on two separate occasions. One is when Moondragon is controlling Thor around Avengers 220 and IM just unloads a tin can of whoop ass on the Asgardian. (it's nice to see him unleashed and hopefully the two pages are seen here...) The other one is when Thor is controlled by Doc Spectrum's prism in Avengers Annual 8 Everyone else is wiped out and only Iron Man is left to take out Thor corrupted by the power prism. I believe one of our longtime posters here did a lovely summation of this issue so let's refer people to the Bronze Age babies blog for some images and recap... bronzeagebabies.blogspot.com/2010/07/george-perez-july-avengers-annual-8.htmlBut actually a quiet moment when IM is the last of the original Avengers walking alone in Avengers # 16 vol. 1 is the most heartwarming. You truly see how much being an Avenger means to him...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 11, 2011 10:39:34 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I'm happy the original Alpha Flight is back. My problem is, why kill them in the first place? They didn't intend for it to stick from day one- they had a backdoor set up. Why bother killing them off panel in the Avengers? It did nothing for the story and only served to alienate Alpha Flight fans- it really made them look second rate (just like Marvel did with the New Warriors during Civil War, but I digress...). If they hadn't killed them, it would've been very easy to reunite the team- Snowbird is a mythical goddess- doesn't take much to bring her back and a little sorcery would've worked with Shaman as well. And that might not have strained things too much. But bringing back seven or eight characters at once seems a bit much. And it makes the "deaths" at Marvel look ever more ridiculous and part of a sales ploy that they don't even bother to keep track of. It doesn't seem like anyone even cared. "Did we kill Alpha Flight?" "Yeah, but we're gonna bring them back. Those were like time clones or something." "Are we bringing them all back?" "No, I think half the team died before that." "I'll just bring 'em all back through a mystic war. How does that sound?" "Yeah, sure..." It just feels lazy.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 8, 2011 13:48:53 GMT -5
This is why Marvel drives me crazy; they let Bendis pretty much kill the Alphans off panel in New Avengers. Horrible decision, but that's the way it goes... But now due to the Chaos War, virtually every dead Alpha Flight member (definitely all the core members) is alive again. lytherus.com/2011/06/16/tcr-like-x-men-and-avengers-try-alpha-flight-1/And I'd almost be willing to accept that because so many people have screwed up Alpha Flight that it might be best to start over. But then I thought remembered reading something about Alpha being alive before this and did some research and well, it turns out Marvel left themselves a backdoor to bring back Alpha Flight a while ago. marvel.wikia.com/Alpha_Flight_%28Earth-616%29It turns out they had a huge time travel adventure and it was speculated it was a "displaced in time" version of Alpha that had been killed. So it appears they virtually never had any plans to keep them dead and they even forgot there was already a plot in place to bring them back at some point. This is just lazy on everybody's part. Bendis for doing a lazy off panel killing of a bunch of characters; Marvel for having an out they didn't even bother to use, and then using an event to bring them back to life. It's like they're not even trying.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 24, 2011 21:28:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 23, 2011 12:49:56 GMT -5
It's terrible. Corporations are no longer interested in mediocre showings. These ratings are considered disastrous by the powers that be (I have to be careful here so as not to burn a source) and everybody that worked so hard to make that series so great are very disappointed. The Conventional Wisdom is that EMH is by far the best animated series ever done by Marvel, which makes the lack of viewership especially vexing. I'm very surprised by their expectations. The animation and character design is just okay- nowhere near the work DC has put into series like JLU or the Young Justice series (which is beautifully animated). I like it primarily because of the stories, but the show isn't the best looking I've seen by any stretch... Also according to this story, Kick Buttowski was their highest rated show in 2010 and had ratings under 700,000, which is below EMH's numbers. www.movieweb.com/news/disney-xd-wants-more-kick-buttowski-suburban-daredevilHow could they be expecting something so much stronger than their best performing show? That'd be like putting on a show after American Idol and expecting it to get better ratings and then being mad that it only did slightly better than your best show. I don't doubt your sources, I just think it's an odd expectation on their part.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 23, 2011 10:24:26 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your views, guys. FF--yeah, EMH was only drawing about 700,000 viewers per episode. That's terrible. That's terrible? Compared to a blockbuster like Clone Wars, maybe, but heck 700,000 outdraws or matches a lot of other cable programming...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 23, 2011 0:13:10 GMT -5
Hi FF--I am also curious as to why, although Marvel characters are in a sense more popular than ever thanks to live action movies, comic and animated versions of the same characters are bombing out these days. I know part of it is the fact that there is so much competition out there, along with the sinking economy. On the other hand, Sponge Bob and Phineas and Ferb seem to be dominating the kids animation market. Is it possible that the live action movies are drawing a huge audience because older people like myself are seeing these characters for the first time live, and bringing kids with them? I think that is a huge part of the popularity of the live films, but it doesn't explain the lack of interest in comic books or the EMH series. I'd love to blame this on Bendis, but it is not true. What is going on here? Are super heroes an antiquated concept? Are kids, brought up on gansta rap, seeing super heroes as corny? Is EMH unpopular? It seems to be getting plenty of airtime and re-airings on DIS/XD. They have a huge backlog of standard fare like Suite Life of Zach and Cody so they could air that instead of their blocks of EMH. In any case, I think the move to decompressed storytelling, the destruction of the collector's market (i.e. everything is reissued immediately), the event fatigue, and that ridiculous price jump all helped kill the market. When prices went up to 3.99 I dropped down to buying two books- I refused to take part in that gouging and since I missed so many issues I haven't gone back to other eight or nine titles I dropped. I also just won't buy crossovers- they're terrible and the Events are awful and nothing worthwhile comes out of these events. Marvel really just led the charge with all these non-event events because they were selling well and I think even the readers who liked them are now burnt out. So if they lost me, a collector and reader for thirty five plus years and they lost a lot of the newer fans who stopped buying these events books, I'm not surprised at all that sales are dropping into the toilet...
|
|