|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 4, 2009 15:37:17 GMT -5
Thanks for posting these. I couldn't see the second Spider-Man page, but that's okay. It clears up quite a bit (especially since I refuse to read Spider-Man these days). Of the Green Arrow/Green Lantern page, I can see it from both sides. On the one hand--kinda funny from the perspective of characterization for the two main characters. On the other hand, if you were a fan of those two characters, I can see where it would be massively insulting. In fact, I rather like the modern Huntress (at least, I did when I was reading Batman years ago) and I can't believe for a second that she would ever be involved in such a thing. Plus, it does kind of cast Hal in a light that I would rather he wasn't. Fortunately, I don't read DC, so it's kind of abhorrent academically, but I don't really care that much. The Chameleon situation, though, is truly disgusting. I could see it as a way to darken the Chameleon considerably, to make him truly horrific and stomach-turning (not unlike the way the Purple Man has been portrayed since ALIAS), but what kind of sick mind creates a situation like that for laughs? I'm grateful that I DON'T read Spider-Man anymore.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 4, 2009 12:13:34 GMT -5
See, in another situation, such talk (the "man boasting" you refer to) might not undermine the characters. You could just chalk it up to the man being a jerk, making it all up to impress is buddy, and move on. You might even get a little character development out of the women's reaction to.
But in superhero comics, you can't do stuff like that because it causes a catch-22. Either you undermine the female characters (if the story turns out to be true) or you undermine the male character who is supposed to be a hero and a standup guy (if the story turns out to be untrue).
It kind of reminds me of a story I heard about an issue of Iron Man back during Civil War. Apparently, the two writers were father and son, and the father (while a professional writer) had no experience writing super heroes. So they were writing a scene were Tony had gone out and bought a bottle of booze, but had it sitting unopened on his table, and Sue Richards surprises him and starts a huge argument over the choices he's made. Apparently, the (writer) son got up to use the bathroom, and when he came back Tony had punched Sue and knocked her on her ass, at which point the son had to explain to his father that you simply can't do stuff like that with superheroes and expect them to still be superheroes. The father couldn't understand because he was just writing the two characters as people, not as icons, and he felt like the emotions in the room at the time were right for that moment.
Yes, I wandered onto a tangent, but the point I'm trying to make is that superheroes are very tricky to write. What might be okay or interesting or a good creation of conflict for a more down-to-earth character often DOES NOT work with superheroes. At least, not if you expect them to continue being heroes.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 3, 2009 14:19:07 GMT -5
This isn't strictly Avengers fanfic, so accordingly, I won't waste bandwidth by posting the whole thing. But I've started a new series (hopefully) of Batman stories that some here might enjoy. Briefly, it's because I've been disatisfied with the last several years of Batman, and I wanted to return him to dealing with crime and criminals rather than super-villians. These stories are (and will be) structured like police procedurals, not unlike Law & Order episodes, featuring Batman and a supporting cast (as ensemble as possible) as they work various cases. Along the way, I'll hint at various aspects of their personal lives and try to flesh the characters out in ways that haven't been done before, but the primary stories will always be the cases they are investigating. Anyway, if this sounds interesting to anyone, here it is.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 3, 2009 12:46:57 GMT -5
That's a very good blog you wrote, Scott, and I think you really hit the nail on the head. Remember when those kinds of sexualized poses were restricted to certain types of comics? I used to walk right past all the issues of Tomb Raider and Danger Girls and such. I knew even then that mainstream comics sexualized women to a great degree, but at least (I told myself) they aren't so bad as all THAT. Nowadays, of course, those same covers can be found on many Marvel comics.
I remember some comments made by Frank Cho when he started Might Avengers: something to the effect of "I tried not to give all the women huge breasts, but halfway through I decided '&^%$ it! Everyone gets a D cup!" Now, I'm a man and I appreciate an attractive woman as much as the next guy, but it IS hard to take some of these characters seriously when they're prancing around in their underwear and six-inch heels.
I've always thought that, if I ever create a female super-hero, I would make sure that she was at least as fully clothed as, say, Captain America. There's nothing wrong with form-fitting costumes, but artists should be conscious of the fact that not everyone looks like a Barbie doll, and that women simply COULD NOT perform all of these acrobatics and combat techniques in panties, high-heeled boots and open tops.
And yes, many (most?) female characters would probably NOT be comfortable with being so openly sexual and teasing. For some characters, it's fine--the Enchantress, Catwoman, Emma Frost, etc. Many characters will use it just like many women in real life like to use it to distract men. Many other female characters, however, will NOT. I've never understood Carl Danvers to have that kind of personality, but when you look at the cut of her costume and the poses she is sometimes shown in, you'd never know it. As much as I like George Perez, I never liked his gypsy design for the Scarlet Witch's costume for the same reason. I know Wonder Woman's costume is iconic, but she looks ridiculous. And those are just off the top of my head.
One of my favorite female characters ever was Jolt, during the original Thunderbolts run. Not only was she fully clothed and not sexually exploited (perhaps because she was supposed to be a young girl), but she actually got a full personality and good development. I was heartbroken when she was killed because she was such a rare breed: a well developed, unsexualized female comics character.
We need more of those, quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 3, 2009 11:43:23 GMT -5
Agreed about the horrible rendering. Frankly, I'm not even sure I like the armor. I miss Sean Chen.
Incidentally (and this is neither here nor there), I was talking with a friend of mine the other day who happens to own a comic shop and has been active in publishing indie comics. As such, he has been getting to know a lot of the artists who are active in the industry right now, and has met and chatted with several of the bigger-name artists at conventions. He has been shocked to find that many (most?) of the artists in the industry right now are emphatically NOT comics fans. They don't read them, they never did, and they prefer movies and video games. Apparently, they commonly just draw comics because it pays and it's easier than holding down a 9-5 job.
To my friend's credit, he was pretty outraged. He feels (and I agree with him) that there should be some sense of history, some sense of love for the characters, the universe, etc. But there isn't any. It's just a paycheck, and a paycheck for doing something that they don't even particularly like.
It's sad, quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Nov 2, 2009 18:55:58 GMT -5
I haven't read the new version of Dick-Grayson-as-Batman, but you might enjoy the last time he did it. It was right after Knightsend, after Bruce took the name back from Azrael. Dick suited up as Batman alongside the Tim Drake Robin, and as I recall, it was really good (and felt very Dick Grayson-ish). I think it was collected in TP as "Prodigal Son" or somesuch.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 30, 2009 12:40:29 GMT -5
I think it's more a result of the different generation. Immersed in today's society, Cap is going to appear hopelessly out of touch. He'll still cling to the styles and tastes of the 1930s and 40s. Subconsciously, I think, people have a touch time imagining a 24 year old "kid" lamenting the passing of swing music and being astounded at special effects. Most people would probably have an easier time relating to that kind of reaction from a 40 year old.
I quite agree, though, that Cap should NOT be cast as a 40 year old for either movie. It should be the same actor in both movies, and probably an unknown. What's going to be tough is that the same actor needs to be able to portray the wide-eyed innocence and naivete of the 1941 Steve Rogers in the first movie, and also the seasoned, natural leader of the Avengers movie. Not an easy role to play.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 29, 2009 17:53:13 GMT -5
I dunno, I think there are plenty of super-friendships in the Marvel universe as well. They're just less noticeable because they don't tend to involve two characters who have their own books. What makes the Batman/Superman relationship so notable is, in part, because they're both A-list characters with their own books. Ditto with Flash/Green Lantern, Green Arrow/Green Lantern, blah blah blah.
Marvel heroes have strong friendships, too--in fact, I'd argue that they have much more solid and fleshed out relationships. But they don't tend to involve 2 flagship characters, and I don't know that Marvel has ever tried to do a "buddy" book outside of Power Man & Iron Fist.
Actually, that would probably be a good pitch for Marvel: some sort of "buddy book", like a "buddy cop" show with two contrasting characters. But who?
And yes, I realize that no one has looked at this threat in, like, six months, but it tickled my fancy.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 29, 2009 17:10:18 GMT -5
I never heard that he had any issue with Elektra's death, but I do recall hearing that he insisted that Jean Grey must be killed.
This is one of those situations where Jim was trying to impose his vision of the overall Marvel Universe on his stable of writers, many of whom did not share his vision. It happens all the time in large collaborations, even in other media. It's amazing how many writers Aaron Sorkin and JMS ticked off during their television producing days--said freelance writer might want to go in one direction, but the boss says to go in another direction. That's just the way it is, unfortunately, because the boss (in this case, Shooter) is the one who is still going to be shepherding the direction and themes of these characters after the individual writer heads off for greener pastures.
I've always respected Jim's opinion on this one. It wasn't a popular position to take (and admittedly, I've only read the story once, years ago, because I'm not a huge X-Men fan), but he had a clear vision of the themes and ideas that he wanted portrayed in Marvel's line of comics. Many creators were unhappy about it, but that's the way it goes sometimes. He was the one entrusted with the editorial line, and at the end of the day, it's his call.
Now, admittedly, I'm not nearly as supportive editorial mandates that I don't like. The Spider-Divorce is an obvious example. I HATE that decision, but at the end of the day, it was the EIC's call, regardless of whether I or the writer like it. All I can do to show my displeasure is to stop buying Spider-Man comics (which I have done).
That's just the way the game is played.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 28, 2009 12:49:23 GMT -5
I've started uploading some of my comics to the site, and it seems to work pretty well. It's hardly exhaustive (I'll need to take a weekend to do that sometime), but so far it's helped with getting a handle on some of the stuff I still need. (For example, I just realized that I never got the 2001 Avengers Annual--I think that's the one that concludes the whole "duplicate Hank Pyms" story from the Busiek run. I was shocked to find that I was missing an important chapter!)
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 23, 2009 11:53:29 GMT -5
I just discovered this thread. I don't usually lurk in the DC area, but the Jim Shooter discussion is fascinating.
I have mixed feelings about the reports of his "hard-ass-ness" and whether or not he was an unreasonable boss.
Creative talent is always hard to reign in. It's their creativity that keeps them thinking outside of the box, that keeps them exploring new and exciting things, and that makes them (sometimes) want to operate outside the rules. Any good boss needs to be a mixture of stern and understanding. It's inevitably going to be a difficult balance.
I've heard it said that Marvel's current EIC, Joe Quesada, is "the best boss you could ever work for". Certainly, it seems that he is extremely understanding and permissive with his talent, often allowing them to run wildly behind schedule and to veer off in unusual directions. There's some strength in that--and also some weakness.
Shooter, from all reports, was the exact opposite of Quesada--very hard-nosed, very insistent on imposing structure on the creative talent and staff. He had a very clear idea of how he wanted the company to run, and how the product should be put together. I don't think that's necessarily bad.
I think the ideal EIC would be a mixture of both approaches. I do agree with Quesada in the sense that I'd rather wait an extra month or two and get an issue from the talented creators that I want to see, rather than getting a fill-in issue from sub-par talent. On the other hand, Quesada can often be TOO permissive (in my opinion), allowing books to run many months or even years behind schedule (Ultimate Hulk vs. Wolverine, anyone?). He's got the right idea, but he lets it go too far. I think he also is a little too permissive with letting creators do absolutely anything they want--there does need to be SOME structure to these things.
Shooter's insistence on a clear beginning, middle and end to stories was, in my opinion, a very good thing. One thing I don't like about modern comics is how we often get sprawling stories that stretch on for months and months without any clear ending--one thread just rambles on and on, leads into another which rambles on and on, etc. I miss the days when I could get a complete story, like an episode of a television drama, in one or two issues.
I also liked Shooter's insistence that writers cannot edit themselves. I'm sure they hated that idea, because now they'd have an actual boss to report to, but it makes good sense to me. Sure, Stan could write and edit everything all by himself, but Marvel has just grown too complex for that approach (and probably had done so by Shooter's time). You need to have at least a small staff to oversee the creators and make sure everything clicks correctly.
I could go on, but overall, I think Shooter's tenure at Marvel was a good one. He probably could have stood be a little more permissive than he was, but I don't really fault him because it sounds like he was the first editor to try to impose some structure at the company, and he probably felt like he had to be really tough on his creators just to maintain any semblance of discipline.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 20, 2009 17:34:44 GMT -5
I think Zemo could cobble together some of the old Thunderbolts. It's not like they ever DID trust him, even after he turned "good". The definition of "good" for Zemo is still for everyone to do what he tells them to do--he's just looking out for everyone's well being instead of actively trying to exploit them is the only difference. Zemo will always be Zemo. Which is what's great about him, actually. He can totally become a good guy, dedicate himself to it heart and soul, and still be a massive prick. I think Techno and MACH-Whatever (Abe Jenkins) would still follow him, and he could probably even convince Songbird, despite their more recent history, if he presented his case in the right light. And I'll bet Atlas would follow him if the others did--Erik will probably always be a follower at heart. That just leaves Moonstone and Jolt. As far as I know, Jolt is still on the new Counter-Earth, right? So she probably has no idea what's been going on during Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, etc. She'd probably be FURIOUS at how the Thunderbolts have been appropriated by Norman Osborn, and it wouldn't take much to convince her to follow Zemo (albeit warily) if he swore to take down Osborn. Personally, I think you could spin a VERY interesting story out of Moonstone's loyalties. For a long time, Jolt and Moonstone occupied opposite ends of the Thunderbolts' moral compass. Pit them that way again: Moonstone clearly knows which side her bread is buttered on, which is reinforced by her new role as Ms. Marvel. Still, she wouldn't dismiss Zemo out of hand--rather, she'd take some time to consider which side would give her a greater advantage. She might even end up siding with Osborn in the end. Bottom line: Norman Osborn is no Heinrich Zemo. The good baron could take Osborn apart if he set his mind to it, and I would LOVE to see that happen.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 20, 2009 13:05:46 GMT -5
So I'm re-reading my Thunderbolts collection in conjunction with Kurt's run on Avengers, and I'm finding myself really nostalgic for the old Thunderbolts. The theme of the book from day one was redemption. Is it possible? How difficult is it? Can people really and truly change? If so, is it for the right reasons? I think this is largely true through the entire run of the series up until Warren Ellis' debut. Then it changed. At the end of Civil War, it stopped being a book about villians trying to rehabilitate themselves and instead became an out-and-out villain book. It may be a very good villain book, in fact, but it's not Thunderbolts to me. The Thunderbolts were a bunch of former villains trying to turn their lives around--the current team seems focused on using their stature with the government to do bad without fear of reprisal. Does anyone else miss the old concept? I read somewhere not long ago that Zemo and the old team might show up to kick the current team's cans at some point. I really hope this is true. I want my Thunderbolts back!
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 19, 2009 12:20:00 GMT -5
My six-year-old got a kick out of Dormammu turning Iron Man into an iron the other day--especially when he started using steam on the cotton setting!
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 15, 2009 16:50:35 GMT -5
Has anyone else seen this? I found it On Demand the other day--I think it airs on Cartoon Network.
It's a bit like Dexter's Laboratory and the Powerpuff Girls in that it's very goofy and irreverent, but it uses essentially ALL the major Marvel characters. Every Marvel hero lives in Superhero City (with Stan Lee as mayor, natch), and they are all depicted as 4-feet tall and generally kiddish and goofy.
Just outside Superhero City is the lair of the evil Dr. Doom (also 4-feet tall), who commands most of the other super villains in schemes to acquire the numerous Infinity Fractals.
The main group is led by a pint-size Iron Man, who recruits the Hulk, Thor, Falcon, Wolverine and Silver Surfer to form the Super Hero Squad. They are headquartered out of the SHIELD helicarrier, and Ms. Marvel acts as their landlady representing SHIELD.
Honestly, I wasn't sure that I was going to like this, but it's pretty hilarious. I think it's also a very clever way to introduce kids to the large stable of Marvel characters, and hopefully turn them into fans at a young age. Already, my six-year old knows who Ms. Marvel and the Falcon are, which I NEVER thought would happen.
Captain America made an appearance in the first episode, and Ben Grimm made an appearance in the second. I think they're going to rotate other characters through on an episode-by-episode basis.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 15, 2009 15:45:24 GMT -5
Some interesting ideas there, HB. Personally, I like contrasting the "lowest ebb" versions of the characters with some of the "higher ebb" versions of other characters. As far as Iron Man goes, I really liked the contrast of putting him in a box with the "recovered" Warbird--we'd get a chance to see Tony's reaction to someone that he himself helps to overcome alcoholism in his subjective future, and we'd also get to see Warbird 's reaction to seeing the man who helped her in his own alcoholic funk.
Some other possibilities:
A post-Secret Invasion Hank Pym interacting with a Roger Stern-era Wasp (who was arguably at her peak in terms of character development, and firmly "over" Hank).
How about an early, green, angry Hulk contrasted against the gray, Joe Fixit Hulk? (I think there was some limited interacting back in the heyday of the Peter David Hulk, but did they ever have to put their differences aside to work together? I think there's some mileage there.)
How about a pale, emotion-less Vision contrasted with a Scarlet Witch from just before their marriage? Or maybe a marriage-era Vision contrasted with a circa-Disassembled Scarlet Witch?
Lots of possibilities here. In fact, I like some of these possibilities better than my first list of suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 15, 2009 11:58:09 GMT -5
While not strictly Avengers-related, it is is comics-related, and I wanted to see if anyone has an opinion.
Over the years, my comics collection has become so voluminous that it's hard to keep track of. I try to keep them organized, but I feel like I'm in a catch-22.
On the one hand, if I keep them in alphabetical order, I can find things very easily. Nothing gets lost, and it's very easy to see what I have and what I'm missing at a glance.
On the other hand, keeping them alphabetically organized makes it hard to read long runs that involve multiple titles. For example, right now I'm trying to go through the Busiek run on Avengers, and in my mind that run begins with Thunderbolts #1. Being the perfectionist that I am, I want to read them in order so that all the events dovetail together as neatly as possible. Before long, I realized that I wanted to include the Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor runs from that era as well, since many of those events are referenced in Kurt's Avengers. Before long, I found myself trying to file hundreds of comics from numerous different titles (once I included Avengers Forever, Maximum Security, and numerous others) into some kind of "proper reading order". It's exhausting.
But, of course, now if I go looking for a single issue or two, it's damned hard to find because it's not alphabetically organized. ARGH!
So, now that I've found this website, it looks like it will allow me to create an online database of my comics collection. This way, I can keep things filed in my "reading order" but I can still easily identify what issues I'm missing from the run and which ones I already have.
So, my question is: has anyone used this service before? Does anyone have any opinions about it that I should be aware of? Advantages? Disadvantages? Any input would be appreciated before I put a lot of work into it.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 14, 2009 13:51:50 GMT -5
HB, I think you've got a much deeper understanding of the Hulk than I do, and I think all of those aspects are absolutely worth exploring. He should absolutely end up as a sympathetic creature--just not in the first movie. See, I tend to think in arcs (probably a result of watching too much Babylon 5 as a kid, but I digress), so when I talk about the FIRST Hulk movie, I'm anticipating at least two more after that. All of your suggested character work would fit in very nicely in later movies--first you establish him as a scary, bad-ass monster, and then you soften him later and develop him further. In fact, if it were me, after reading your post, I would want to DELIBERATELY treat him like a two-dimensional monster in the first film so that I could have a moment in the second film where some character (off the top of my head, perhaps an Amadeus Cho-type character) points out that everyone is treating him like a monster and that perhaps there is more to him than that. I'd want to present the audience with one idea about the Hulk and then turn that on its ear in the second movie. HB, you and I should get together and make a movie.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 12, 2009 16:26:31 GMT -5
Having just re-read AVENGERS FOREVER over the weekend, I thought I'd take a stab at this:
1. Thor: from antiquity, well before Odin trapped him in the form of Don Blake. This Thor would be arrogant, boistrous, and unconcerned with the impact of his actions on "mere mortals." He'd probably be resistant to the idea of "teaming" with a bunch of mortals as well.
2. Captain America: from just after Civil War. Having lost the civil war, the readers (and maybe more modern characters) would know that he is about to be shot and killed in his next appearance. Similarly to AVENGERS FOREVER, this is a Cap whose faith in America has been shaken.
3. Iron Man: from his drinking days. 'Nuff said.
4. Warbird: from after she overcame her alcoholism in Kurt's run on Avengers. She and Tony could have some very interesting interactions, this time from the OTHER side (i.e., Carol trying to help Tony cope with his drinking).
5. Thunderstrike: yes, of course, I had to throw him in, but this version would be the Kevin Masterson version from A-Next
6. Vision: the pale version who is trying to reconnect with his emotions and (faux) humanity.
7. Bruce Banner: I'd like to see Banner be the main character, with few appearances of the Hulk. He might even be the squad leader, given his intelligence.
Just my thoughts. I think there's potentially some very interesting character dynamics lurking in that lineup.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 12, 2009 15:17:14 GMT -5
Boy, I wish I'd been here when this debate was going on. I LOVED Civil War and thought it was very well-written, but I HATED that SOB Tony Stark. I think I'd have gotten along famously with Doctor Doom.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 12, 2009 13:12:40 GMT -5
Okay, so I finally watched The Incredible Hulk over the weekend, and I have some mixed feelings on it.
On the one hand, I did enjoy it. It had some "wow" moments, and I thought the relationship between Bruce and Betty was very well-developed and truthful.
On the other hand, movie-makers continue to have a basic misunderstanding of the Hulk (in my opinion) and how to make him appealing to a mass audience. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of the Hulk, myself, and I've never been a regular reader of this comics, but it seems to me that Marvel and the various movies keep wanting to cast the Hulk as a hero, as a sympathetic quasi-superhero. He's not.
Hulk's first movie, his establishing story, should treat him as THE VILLIAN. Let's face it, folks: he's not a super-hero. He's a monster. He's a gigantic, green engine of destruction. He's fueled by anger and hatred. He's something to be feared. He's Godzilla was a touch of the Frankenstein monster.
Bruce, on the other hand, should be very sympathetic. He's Dr. Jekyl to Hulk's Mr. Hyde. He should be portrayed as having a temper just below the surface, even before his Gamma accident, and his character arc throughout the movie should be learning that he needs to control that volatile aspect of his personality because his anger can get a lot of people killed.
And that brings us to the impact of the Hulk. He's weapon of mass destruction that movie-makers seem reluctant to unleash. He should knock down a lot of buildings in his first movie. He should cause a lot of property damage. He should probably even kill a lot of people.
The climax of the movie should center around finding a cure for Bruce's condition. The police and the army fight him. Nothing can stop him except that last-minute cure. The movie should end with Bruce being locked up for everyone else's protection.
The SECOND movie is where we can get into the idea of bringing him back to fight even bigger and badder monsters, kind of like how Godzilla ended up becoming a Japanese hero once they learned how to use him against Mothra and Mecha-Godzilla and so forth.
I really think that Marvel and the movie-makers are doing themselves a disservice by trying to make him too much of a hero right out of the gate. First, scare the %$#@ out of us. THEN rehabilitate him. I think you'll get a MUCH better film out of it.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 12, 2009 11:19:27 GMT -5
I'm hoping this caps off (no pun intended) the uber-story that began with Disassembled. I don't think that will "cap off", to be perfectly honest, until Bendis leaves the book. I was talking with a friend the other day about the state of the Avengers books, and we realized that the Scarlet Witch is still out there. (I mean, we knew that, but we really started thinking about it.) Wanda essentially "started" the Bendis run with Disassembled. Then she went on and made some major changes to the MU with House of M and its aftermath. Curiously, though (at least to me), Bendis made a point of not killing her off, which would have been a natural endgame to the whole Wanda story. Instead, she was given amnesia and (last time I checked) is living a peaceful life in the European countryside somewhere. He even teased that when the resurrected Hawkeye tracked her down and slept with her. If my read of the landscape is correct, Bendis has something in mind for her down the road. My guess is that Wanda will also "end" Bendis' run on the Avengers, neatly bookending the story she began in Disassembled. At that point, I think we'll be able to look back on the Bendis run as somehow being a "Scarlet Witch" story at its core. We might even find that she's somehow been influencing events this entire time. That's my prediction.
|
|
|
Boring?
Oct 12, 2009 11:09:04 GMT -5
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 12, 2009 11:09:04 GMT -5
Thanks, and I agree about ASM. It hit a high note before FF did. In fact, other than an issue here or there, I would say ASM may be Marvel's best book through its first 300 issues. Like I said, there are clunkers every now and then, but overall the first 30 years or so were pretty darn good. And then it got all convoluted with crossovers, Venom, Carnage, etc. I would agree with this statement, except that I think the quality lasted a bit longer. I was never wild about Todd McFarlane's art (even back in the day) but I thought David Michelinie (sp?) had a pretty solid grip on Peter's character and wrote him consistently well. I know a lot of people mark the introduction of Venom and Carnage as the point where ASM "jumped the shark", but I actually enoyed those stories greatly. No one has ever really understood Eddie Brock's character since Michelinie left and even the first Carnage story (which he wrote) was a very good examination of Brock's character as contrasted against the truly insane and deeply evil Carnage. I think both Venom and Carnage have been over-used in the years since by numerous writers who just saw them as costumes with cookie-cutter villian personalities, but their initial appearances were very worthwhile.
|
|
|
Boring?
Oct 8, 2009 11:19:20 GMT -5
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 8, 2009 11:19:20 GMT -5
I had the exact same experience when I bought the first Essential volume. Those stories were so hokey and goofy! They certainly have some historic value, but they're not my favorites.
In fact, I seem to recall that it led into a conversation about how Stan's heart just wasn't in the Avengers. They were Marvel's answer to the Justice League, which was selling EXTREMELY well for DC at the time, and Stan's bosses wanted to know why Marvel didn't have a Justice League of their own.
So Stan gave them what they wanted, but it wasn't something he really enjoyed, so he left the book relatively quickly (as opposed to his lengthy runs on Amazing Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and others). The book didn't really seem to find its feet until Roy Thomas took over, and he introduced many of the conventions that make the Avengers memorable to this day.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 8, 2009 11:09:29 GMT -5
Well, I was planning on mostly lurking, but since good ol' Defdave introduced himself, I'll do the same.
My name is Jason Fritz, and I'm a long-time Avengers fan, though not as long-time as others. I started with the Harras run (which I'll still defend up to issue 375 or so) but I don't think I truly appreciated the Avengers until the amazing Busiek run in Volume 3.
I dropped off the old Avengers Mailing List many years ago, but now that I've got a nice office job I have a little time to surf the internet and read, so I've been poking around here to see what's going on.
Although not my favorite, I have been enjoying the current Bendis run on the book, and I especially loved the Civil War crossover. I had to drop my comics habit a little over a year ago for financial reasons, but I'm busy trying to catch up. Back in the day, I was a huge fan of Adam Warlock and Thunderstrike (hence my name) but in recent years I've become a much bigger Captain America fan. His death was really hard for me to read, but I love Brubaker's work and I'm looking forward to catching up with the current "Return" story.
I'm 31 years old, and have 3 kids, all of whom can at least recognize all of the major Avengers, including Hawkeye (whoo hoo!). My middle son (10 years old) is especially into comics, although he's primarily a Spider-Man fan.
Anyway, that's me. It's good to see some of the old crew again.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 7, 2009 11:44:10 GMT -5
Interesting.
One thing I did notice (just to play Devil's Advocate for a second) is that the Mandarin didn't actually use his rings of power in Revenge of the Mandarin. All of his attacks against Iron Man were via the Dragon of Heaven, utilizing either exterior weapons systems or interior weapons systems (although I admit that I have no idea why anyone would build a super-secret fortress with rocket-launchers designed to fire into the INTERIOR of your base, but I digress).
Anyway, methinks there be some wiggle-room on the issue of whether or not that was actually the Mandarin with his actual rings of power in Revenge of the Mandarin. In retrospect, of course. Someone like Kurt could probably pull it all together and make it work.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 7, 2009 11:16:29 GMT -5
I think you're absolutely right about the difficulty involved in establishing so many solo movie franchises before bringing them all together in a team movie. If a Justice League movie ever happens, it will doubtless be with an ad-hoc cast.
The cost is not the only hurdle to overcome, of course. In some cases, you may find that the actors themselves simply have no interest in a spandex-fest. I rather doubt, for example, that you'd ever be able to talk Christian Bale into an ensemble superhero movie unless it was part of his contract when he signed on to do the Batman movies.
Marvel, I think, is taking the smarter approach by building it into their initial contracts. If I remember correctly, "Avengers" was part of Robert Downey Jr's "Iron Man" contract, and I'm sure it's part of "Thor" and "Captain America" contracts from the get-go.
That said, I think we're already seeing some of that strain with regard to the Avengers, as seen in the persistent rumblings that Edward Norton may or may not appear as the Hulk in "Avengers". I think they're smart to limit the cast to the big three (Cap, Thor, Iron Man) along with a handful of "new-to-movies" characters to fill out the ranks without overwhelming the budget.
Frankly, I have my doubts about ever seeing a good Justice League movie, simply because of all the inherent difficulties and roadblocks involved. I think a good Avengers movie is much more likely, and I'm crossing my fingers.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 6, 2009 14:11:19 GMT -5
Okay, so I'm re-reading my Avengers collection from the post-Heroes Reborn era (including the solo books for Cap, Iron Man and Thor), and I just finished the Mandarin story IRON MAN 9-10. The story heavily implies that the entire scheme was nothing more than a test by the Mandarin to see if Tony was truly his "worthy opponent" or somesuch.
Did anything ever come of that? I know Kurt stopped writing the book shortly thereafter. Did the Mandarin ever make any appearances after that? Was that whole thread just dropped? I can't remember any more.
I will say that I'm really enjoying these Iron Man stories. For whatever reason, Tony Stark never really clicked for me, but Kurt made him very sympathetic and enjoyable. Too bad Tony turned out to be such a pr*ck later on.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 1, 2009 12:22:23 GMT -5
Argh! I wrote up a whole, lengthy reply about characters that have been successful replacements and other characters who have not, and about how changes need to be made to the Hulk but that Jeph Loeb may not be the best one to do it and a bright red Hulk looks ridiculous . . . but I his "post" and got an error. The computer ate my entire post.
Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Sept 28, 2009 14:56:39 GMT -5
Not reading this, but it seemed like the perfect place to say this:
I've been away from comics for a little over a year now. For personal (and financial) reasons, I stopped reading in the middle of Secret Invasion, so it's been a little while. I had dropped Avengers Initiative some time prior, however, because the writing and the characters just weren't doing it for me. I stopped with issue 7.
Now, I was enjoying Mighty Avengers when I stopped reading, and I was thinking of picking it up again. Now I hear that Dan Slott is writing Mighty Avengers, as well, and I'm a little uneasy about the writing. Anyone have any reassurances about the writing? Have Avengers Initiative picked up since I stopped reading it?
|
|